A Vote for Nader

[erikred]

Is a vote for Bush. Mostly. Let's put that post on embracing complexity to work for us. If you're the sort of person who:

-- actually votes, and you usually vote Democrat, then yes, your vote for Nader is a vote for Bush.

-- actually votes, and you usually vote Republican, then no, your vote for Nader is not a vote for Bush.

-- doesn't usually vote at all, but you've been motivated to vote for the only candidate to host SNL, your vote for Nader is not a vote for Bush, but you're certainly missing an opportunity to vote against Bush.

-- doesn't actually vote, but you like to complain loudly about the Bush Administration, your vote for Nader or your couch is not only a vote for Bush, it's also clear evidence that you need to be kicked in the head.

Let's put it this way: If you want to eject GWB from the White House, your only real choice is whichever shmuck the Democrats choose at the Primary Convention. Ralph's not going to win. The best he can hope for is to gain 5% of the vote, and it's pretty clear that the only people who are going to vote for him are the ones who already oppose the Bush presidency. Since we don't have Instant Run-off Elections (a rant for another day), a split in the voter base of any candidate is bound to lead to that candidate's loss. Ralph is a splitter.

If you want to do some real good for third-party candidates, support your local third-party candidates. If you get enough of them elected, you can change the political landscape.

Voting for a third-party candidate in the Presidential Election is not going to change the political landscape. Deal with it.

Comments

[ronebofh.livejournal.com]

You forgot to account for the people who actually vote and usually vote Green or Nader.

Anyway, i like to believe that democracy is a process of voting FOR something, not AGAINST something. If someone wants to vote for Nader, fine, they can do that. If you want to convince them to do otherwise, that's cool, too. But i still find "a vote for Nader is a vote for Bush" disingenuous rhetoric; you didn't hear about outraged conservatives berating Pat Buchanan for potentially costing them the election by taking away valuable votes in swing states. It's just more liberal whining, and i won't stand for it.

I do agree with supporting local third-party candidates, though. That really is the best way to effect change. I do think that anyone who votes for Nader this time around is being a fool, but that's because Nader is a no-talent ass-clown, and not because they're "voting for Bush".

Re:

[erikred.livejournal.com]

Actually, we did hear about outraged conservatives berating Pat for his independent run. They generally chided him as a bitter rabble-rouser and compared him to Ross Perot.

I would love to indulge in the process of voting FOR instead of voting AGAINST, but unfortunately we're not at that point yet. We may think we're at that point, but we're not. This is what killed us in 2000. After eight glorious years of Clintonian prosperity (no matter what the revisionists would have you believe), we, the progressive Left, came to somehow believe that Conservatism had fallen by the way-side. We believed that no one in their right mind would, after those glorious, somewhat progressive eight years, vote to move us back to insane deficits and social prudishness; it was conceivable. We took it for granted that Gore was going to crush Bush, so it hardly seemed like a bad idea for people to vote their consciences and vote for Ralph. After all, it wouldn't really affect the election, right? And maybe it would cause the Dems, sitting safe in the White House, to realize that we needed even more progress, right?

Except that Gore wasn't a shoo-in, a lot of people were not in their right minds, and those conscience votes caused a retrogressive to win to the White House.

The US is not San Francisco, where our choices in the last Mayoral race were a somewhat progressive, and a radical progressive. That distinction is important.

[ronebofh.livejournal.com]

I dunno. I think the problem lies squarely with Gore running a complacent and ineffective campaign, and McCain not willing to play poo-flinging with Karl Rove.

And i'm not really sure that the prosperity during those years can fairly be called "Clintonian" any more than the downturn could be blamed on Bush.

Re:

[erikred.livejournal.com]

Oh, please understand that by castigating the conscience votes for Nader I am in no way exonerating Gore for his inept handling of the race. The man lost it all on his lonesome. It's just that those extra 10,000 Nader votes would have allowed him to squeak to victory in Florida.

Re:

[ronebofh.livejournal.com]

And possibly a few other states, too. All the more reason Florida needs to become submerged by melting polar icecaps.

Re:

[erikred.livejournal.com]

Soon, baby.