I find his timing to be so ... convenient too. It's like he waited until his popping into the race would cause the most havoc and THEN decided to toss his name into the hat.

Posted February 24, 2008 4:47 PM by aguane

Maybe someone can fund an independent Huckabee campaign to siphon off the wacky-Christianist portion of the GOP base.

Posted February 24, 2008 4:51 PM by Larry Brennan

Didn't this narcissist cause enough damage when he ran last time? Oh well, at least those who vote for him this time don't have the excuse that they didn't know a vote for him would be to all intents and purposes a vote for the Republicans.

Posted February 24, 2008 4:54 PM by Rob Hansen

Oh, FFS.

Posted February 24, 2008 5:06 PM by Another Damned Medievalist

With himself in the starring role of Thomas Jefferson?

I much preferred Ken Howard in that role.
Go away, Ralph.

Posted February 24, 2008 5:08 PM by Serge

A reality check:

Al From in the DLC's own magazine wrote, "The assertion that Nader's marginal vote hurt Gore is not borne out by polling data. When exit pollers asked voters how they would have voted in a two-way race, Bush actually won by a point. That was better than he did with Nader in the race." See here.

And the claim that Nader was trying to hurt the Dems? There's a study by a Harvard professor here that concludes "The spoiler thesis is apparently the result of journalists looking to sensationalize the campaign, Democrats looking for a scapegoat, or a simple misreading of the campaign record."

Posted February 24, 2008 5:13 PM by will shetterly

"I think it always would probably pull votes away from the Democrats and not the Republicans, so naturally, Republicans would welcome his entry into the race," Huckabee said Sunday on CNN.

Posted February 24, 2008 5:20 PM by James D. Macdonald

I don't understand why Nader is doing this. What does he have to gain from a McCain presidency?

I hope, this time, Americans don't forget the quirks of the system they use to elect their president.

(It's worth noting, BTW, that at least someone associated with Nader is on record saying that Nader wanted to punish the Democrats.)

Posted February 24, 2008 5:22 PM by John Chu

It doesn't really matter anyway. In 2004, Nader got 0.38% of the vote. There's no indication he'd do any better this time.

Posted February 24, 2008 5:22 PM by sburnap

It would be really fascinating to be in a position to do some deep data mining on Nader's financial interests (and those of his family and friends) looking for transitive dependencies on RNC-related sources ...

Posted February 24, 2008 5:26 PM by Charlie Stross

Jim, I think Al From trumps Mike Huckabee on this subject. I don't have much respect for From's politics, but I'm pretty sure he knows that Canada does not have a national igloo. And he's more likely to tell the truth about what he believes would hurt or help the Democrats.

Posted February 24, 2008 5:27 PM by will shetterly

I'm sure that Erik Prince, CEO for Blackwater, will contribute to Nader's campaign as he has given to third party candidates in the past. Eric knows something that Nader apparently does not know. That third parties take votes away from the two dominant parties. Even Ron Paul knows this and will not run as an independent. So it would seem that even he has more class than Nader does. The last eight years have completely soured me on third parties.

Posted February 24, 2008 5:31 PM by Brenda von Ahsen

Brenda @12, if Ron Paul does not run, it's because he knows that in a two-party system, third parties can't win. He also knows that the last time a third-party candidate affected the result of an election was in '92, when Ross Perot ensured Bill Clinton's victory. Paul has no reason to want to help Obama or Clinton.

Posted February 24, 2008 5:37 PM by will shetterly

I vaguely remember reports that Nader has in the past received help from right-wing sources. A little Googling turned up a 2004 American Prospect article:

In its effort to get on the ballot in the key battleground state of Arizona, the Prospect has learned, the Nader campaign hired a petition company that is also gathering signatures for a draconian anti-immigrant initiative pushed by right-wing elements in the state. The initiative, called Protect Arizona Now (PAN), would restrict access to public services by undocumented immigrants.

In addition, according to several sources, the Nader campaign was assisted in its petition drive by an unlikely figure: the ultra-conservative former executive director of the Arizona Republican Party, Nathan Sproul. Sources say Sproul -- who is also spearheading an initiative to block public funding from political campaigns in the state -- made payments to the petition contractors working on his public-funding initiative to gather signatures for Nader as well.

In this case "gather[ing] signatures for Nader as well" didn't mean running a separate petition drive at the same time--it meant that, as the "professional petitioners" gathered signatures for the anti-immigrant petition, they stuck the pro-Nader petition in front of the prospective signers at the same time. Someone from the Arizona Democratic party totaled up the party affiliations and found that about 65% of the signatures on the Nader petition came from Republicans.

And apparently before hiring these guys the Nader campaign had "first unsuccessfully solicited a Republican consulting firm" to handle their petition drive.

Also pretty amazing was the Nader spokesman's reaction to all this:

"We only heard of Sproul a week ago from media reports. We received 20,000 signatures, and we paid for 20,000 signatures, so I'd be surprised if any of this is true."

Never mind the non sequitur. ("We have 20,000 signatures! Therefore, you are lying!") Look at the way he just came out and said "we paid for 20,000 signatures". For this spokesman, at least, it's just natural to think of democracy as something you buy.

Posted February 24, 2008 6:02 PM by Wesley

Nader is, perhaps, the commonest misspelling of 'nadir' in the American political lexicon.

I rather liked this particular comment.

Posted February 24, 2008 6:03 PM by Fragano Ledgister

Trying to keep a candidate off the ballot because he might hurt yours hardly strikes me as a very democratic thing to do.

I'm largely apolitical myself, and not a US citizen anyway, but I think if the country is ever to move beyond a two-party system (which is only twice as nice as a one-party system), it needs many more Naders running on all sides of the spectrum. Shouldn't everyone who's mad at Nader for losing Gore the 2000 election be much madder at the electoral system that made it possible for him to do so?

Posted February 24, 2008 6:15 PM by Tom Recht

Jim:

Okay, everyone. Help save America. Work to keep Nader off the ballot in your state.

I'm probably being unbearably dense today, but how do we do that? He plays well in Washington, for whatever reason, and I was under the impression that anyone who wants to can be on the ballot.

Posted February 24, 2008 6:17 PM by Sarah

Will Shetterly, you just sound really desperate to me. I don't understand how after all this crap we've gone through with the Bush admin. that anyone could still support a Nader candidacy. I don't get it.

Posted February 24, 2008 6:19 PM by Brenda von Ahsen

Somebody wake me up when this nightmare ends...... We have the old and venerable 71 year old John McCain leading the way on the GOP side. We have the aging and angry Hillary Clinton (in her 60s)who like McCain has been a poltical iron horse for decades. Now we have the 74 year old Ralph Nader, champion of the Green Party and worn out environmentalist ready to join in this race. Wow! What more could we ask for......Too bad George Burns has passed away. Jimmy Carter could still make a run, I think he has another campaign in him. We will need to ensure we have plenty of wheel chair ramps on hand and allow for naps during the debates. We really need to get a reality check here. It is time for the old line politicians to start heading to the sidelines. We appreciate their service, for the most part. Some of it has been questionable but we applaud their efforts. We don't need a field of senior citizens and aging politicians in 2008. Please somebody tell McCain, Hillary and Ralph to step back, go take some extra naps and let this nation move on.

Mike B
Alabama

Posted February 24, 2008 6:21 PM by Mike Bailey

The problem isn't Nader.

The problem is Nader *voters*.

How can one reason with someone who accepted the following statement as true: "There's no difference between Gore and Bush?" How can you reason with someone who's going to posit that there's no difference between McCain and Obama?

The only ideas I have for reasoning with them are illegal, and rightfully so.

Posted February 24, 2008 6:26 PM by Erik V. Olson

Mike B, are you really saying someone shouldn't run simply because they have passed some arbitrary age (and I note with interest that Hillary loses a decade on that age, presumably due to being female - I mean, she's in her *60s* - shouldn't she be playing bingo or crocheting?), or is my sarcasm metre off?

Don't get me wrong, I think there are heaps of reasons to gnaw off your own hand before voting for McCain or Nader (and choose to reserve my opinion on Clinton), but age? That's a stupid reason to vote, or not vote, for anyone, unless you think that generational change is so absolute a good that it trumps all considerations of ability, policy, outlook and intention.

Posted February 24, 2008 6:31 PM by vian

Brenda @18, I would hardly call Al From "desperate." You may not recognize his name; he was the founder of the Democratic Leadership Council, the conservative Democrats who elected Bill Clinton and tried to elect Gore.

I don't know anything about the Harvard professor, though. He may be desperate.

I'm voting for whichever corporatist Democrat we get this year, just as I did four years ago; I understand how the Biparty works. I just think that if people want to beat the Republicans, they should stop giving them a pass on 2000 by blaming Nader instead of the Bush gang. Losers love scapegoats. Winners keep their eyes on the opposition.

Posted February 24, 2008 6:41 PM by will shetterly

Tom: Trying to keep a candidate off the ballot because he might hurt yours hardly strikes me as a very democratic thing to do.

The US has a majority-vote-wins election process. That process can be gamed by third party candidates who can take votes from the two primary candidates and throw the election.

And THAT is a very undemocratic thing to do.

Shouldn't everyone who's mad at Nader for losing Gore the 2000 election be much madder at the electoral system that made it possible for him to do so?

The ideal process would be some sort of variety of condercet voting method: a scaled or weighted voting procedure. In such a process, people can vote their first choice to Nader if they so choose, but could then give their second choice vote to a candidate who actually has a chance of winning and is the best of the remaining candidates. THAT process (condercet) would produce a more democratic result.

Nader is attempting to throw the future of this country into another four years of crap by gaming the majority-vote-wins process, producing a non-democratic result (a non-condercet result). If his actions are OK simply because he works within the system to game the outcome, then it should just as easily be OK for others to work within the system to do everything possible to stop that man from ruining the future of this country. What's good for the goose...

simply put, Nader doesn't give a damn about the American people anymore. And the most democratic thing (from a condercet method point of view) an American could do for this next election is to make damn sure damn Nader doesn't get on the ballot.

Posted February 24, 2008 6:44 PM by Greg London

Greg @23, Nader got almost no votes four years ago. He'll get even fewer this year. That's how the two-party system works: a third party has one shot at victory (see the Republicans). Then your numbers in the Electoral College, the ones that get reported, make you look like you did worse than you did. People lose faith in your chance of winning. And they're right to do so, because third parties can't win a two-party game.

Nader is irrelevant. The Republicans know that. They're just happy to have Democrats waste their time trying to keep Nader off the ballot when they should be focusing on defeating Republicans.

And, frankly, it looks really bad when Democrats are opposing democracy.

Posted February 24, 2008 6:53 PM by will shetterly

They're just happy to have Democrats waste their time trying to keep Nader off the ballot when they should be focusing on defeating Republicans.

A reasonable person might wonder why it's not a waste of time for the GOP to try to put Nader on the ballot when they should be focusing on defeating Democrats. And, furthermore, what you know that they don't.

Posted February 24, 2008 7:01 PM by Anticorium

Greg: I agree with you that a Condorcet method would be preferable to the current system, of course. That's exactly why I think more third-party candidates should be running: the two-party system will never change until they do. I care about that more than I care about who wins the current election.

I don't agree that "third party candidates can take votes from the two primary candidates". Voters can give them their votes, or not. If they are not to have that choice, the Constitution should say explicitly that only the two large parties may run presidential candidates. The whole premise of democracy is that people are capable of informed decisions, and to deny them the chance to make those decisions is undemocratic.

Posted February 24, 2008 7:05 PM by Tom Recht

One last useful look at Nader's 2000 campaign: Dispelling the Myth of Election 2000: Did Nader Cost Gore the Election?

Here's my favorite bit from it:

"Twelve percent of Florida Democrats (over 200,000) voted for Republican George Bush" -San Francisco Chronicle, Nov. 9, 2000

Since there were 97,488 Green voters in Florida, that means the Democrats are objectively two times more responsible for the Florida results than the Greens.

Posted February 24, 2008 7:07 PM by will shetterly

Will @ 22
I know what the DLC is and I have heard arguments similar to yours before. I don't think your frame is correct but I wasn't asking that. I want to understand why you, not Al From, support Nader. Because it seems to me from reading your tone that, all things being equal you would (or would like to) vote for him. I'm not getting why that is.

Posted February 24, 2008 7:11 PM by Brenda von Ahsen

Anticorium, Republicans like anything that distracts Democrats. They studied 2000 very closely. They noticed what the founder of the DLC said about Nader. They know that he's useful to them because he's naive enough to think that progressive issues are relevant in a game played by two conservative parties.

I'll happily agree that Nader's an idiot to run. Principles suck when all you can do is lose. I wish Nader would work for a group to try to create real democracy in the US. But he knows like every politician that if you have issues that you want to raise in the US, the only way to get attention is to run a presidential campaign.

And, really, anyone who thinks Nader's issues and Obama's are identical isn't paying attention.

Well, I've been distracted by Nader enough now. Obama and Clinton are the best chance we've got at getting better health care and, maybe, if we're lucky, leaving Iraq, so I'm putting my focus back on them now.

Posted February 24, 2008 7:19 PM by will shetterly

Tom @ 26
That's exactly why I think more third-party candidates should be running: the two-party system will never change until they do. I care about that more than I care about who wins the current election.

I see this as highly irresponsible.

I don't agree that "third party candidates can take votes from the two primary candidates".

You are welcome to disagree but you are wrong here. Not mistaken or confused but factually wrong.

Posted February 24, 2008 7:22 PM by Brenda von Ahsen

Nader's reason for entering the race is to draw attention to the problem of a two party system. The Bush/Cheney administration was so corrupt, I honestly think the democrats will win even if Santa Clause was their nominee.

Posted February 24, 2008 7:25 PM by michael

Friday, whenn this hit CNN.com, I looked at the comments (and posted one myself). The views I was seeing were about 90 percent 'go away, Ralph'.

will, I think you're missing something here: Al From isn't paid to get Democrats elected, he's paid to advise campaigns ... and his record is one of advising lots of losing campaigns. I don't trust him on anything; I'm not sure who he's really working for.

Posted February 24, 2008 7:31 PM by P J Evans

Brenda @28, I voted for Nader in 2000 in California. As a result, I've listened to Democrats scapegoat him and the Greens for eight years. I'm naive; I think democracy matters. In 2000, when the Republicans sent their people out in the streets of Miami to keep the contest alive, the Democrats told theirs to go home. Al Gore himself told member after member of the Black Caucus to sit down and let the Republicans win. This is what DLC politics have done to the Democrats.

But do the Democrats blame the DLC? Do they blame the Republicans? Do they blame the Electoral College? Do they blame the Supreme Court? Do they blame Jeb Bush and his corrupt Florida administration? Do they even listen to the founder of the DLC on this issue? No, they blame Nader and the Nader-voters.

I've accepted lesser-of-two-evil politics. I worked for and voted for Kerry in 2004. I will work for and vote for Clinton or Obama in 2004. I'm in Arizona; I would love to see McCain fail in his home state.

But I also know what the Biparty is. When Democrats call for limits on democracy, I feel a little ill.

Well, it's past time for me to leave this thread. Here's hoping for a better America soon--

Posted February 24, 2008 7:33 PM by will shetterly

But he knows like every politician that if you have issues that you want to raise in the US, the only way to get attention is to run a presidential campaign.

Thank the gods Nader is raising these issues. If he tried to instead do something about them, he might be stuck in a go-nowhere position like Illinois state senator, a job from which no man could ever emerge with the possibility of higher office in Washington.

Posted February 24, 2008 7:35 PM by Anticorium

I'd think a lot more of Nader if he was visibly involved in politics more often than once every four years.

(When the only time you ever take part in the process is late in it, your reasons for participating should be questioned, loudly and often. Especially when you want someone else to pay for your participation.)

Posted February 24, 2008 7:35 PM by P J Evans

"Not very democratic"

But the US isn't, and never has been, outside certain regional enclaves in New England.

American democracy can work, and has worked pretty well at various times in the past, but it takes a really widespread, well founded, trembling belief on the part of the various elites that their options are democracy or being fed to the mob, possibly in pieces.

Posted February 24, 2008 7:37 PM by Graydon

will@22: I'm voting for whichever corporatist Democrat we get this year,

Uh, so you're saying "whichever" because you think both Obama and Clinton are equally "corporatists"? Isn't this the same "tweedledee and tweedledum" argument from a few years back?

just as I did four years ago; I understand how the Biparty works.

Out of curiosity, have you ever voted for a third party presidential candidate?

For the record, my answer to that question would be "no".

I just think that if people want to beat the Republicans, they should stop giving them a pass on 2000 by blaming Nader instead of the Bush gang.

Except, the thing is that blame can be assigned to Nader AND the Bush gang. You cast it as if it is either or. Bush's gang stole votes. AND. Nader drew votes from the democratic candidate.

will@24: Nader is irrelevant. The Republicans know that. They're just happy to have Democrats waste their time trying to keep Nader off the ballot when they should be focusing on defeating Republicans.

So, you're saying it's a waste of resources to try and stop Nader from getting on the ballot because he won't affect the election outcome anyway?

Do you say this because you don't think he affected the outcome in any previous election?

Or do you think Nader did negatively affect an election for the Democrats, but that somehow things have changed and if he were to get on the ballot NOW, somehow history would not be an indicator of voter behaviour?

Because I believe Nader harmed at least one election, and I see no reason why history can't repeat itself.

Lastly, you seem to present another either/or dilemma. Either we stop Nader from getting on the ballot, OR, we stop the Republicans from cheating on the election process. I'm not convinced those are mutually exclusive. I think the democratic party could successfully do both, AND win the election.

Posted February 24, 2008 7:39 PM by Greg London

PJ, I don't like From either, but I know exactly who he supports: corporatists like Bill Clinton, Al Gore, John Kerry, Hillary Clinton, and Barack Obama--the DLC hated Edwards, but they've said they're happy with either of the last two Dems standing.

Sorry for doing the Minnesota goodbye. I will make it out the door soon!

Posted February 24, 2008 7:43 PM by will shetterly

Greg, in haste:

Substitute "DLC-approved" for "corporatist," if you prefer.

I always voted for the Democrat until the early '90s, when I ran for Governor of Minnesota on the Grassroots Party Ticket and voted for myself, which might've been my first third-party vote. (Came in 3rd out of a field of 6, kicking Libertarian butt, which I'm still proud of, though the Libertarian did seem like a nice guy, as Libertarians go.) Voted for Nader in '96 after watching Clinton abandon his campaign promises, and for Nader again in 2000.

This is the important fact about 2000 and Florida: the Democrats won in Florida. The polls were accurate. The Nader voters saw how badly Gore was campaigning and the expected 5% Green vote dropped to about 2.5%, if I remember correctly. But the Bush gang was ready to steal the Florida vote, and they did. I'll remind you again of what Al From said the result would've been if Nader had not run.

Damn, I'm wordy in haste, too.

Posted February 24, 2008 7:54 PM by will shetterly

Vian @21 wrote "I note with interest that Hillary loses a decade on that age, presumably due to being female - I mean, she's in her *60s* -"

It's more extreme than that -- Hillary is 60 and Hillary is six months younger than Mitt.

Posted February 24, 2008 7:54 PM by Pfusand

will@33: But do the Democrats blame the DLC? Do they blame the Republicans? Do they blame the Electoral College? Do they blame the Supreme Court? Do they blame Jeb Bush and his corrupt Florida administration? Do they even listen to the founder of the DLC on this issue? No, they blame Nader and the Nader-voters.

you must have posted this while I was working on #37.

So the problem is this. You again present this as an either/or issue. Either it's the democratic party's fault, OR it's Nader's fault. And since you assert the Democratic party could have produced better candidates and could have run a better campaign, then it must be that, and NOT that Nader siphoned votes from Gore.

I say it's both. Yeah, the democratic party could have done better. AND yeah, Nader took votes from Gore, probably enough that Gore lost the election.

That you adamantly deny that Nader or his voters should receive ANY of the blame, I think, stems more from being a member of that population, than from anything else.

The thing is, my opposition to Nader in 2008 has nothing to do with blaming you or anyone else who voted for Nader in 2000. It has only to do with me wanting the democratic candidate to get the presidency, and not wanting Nader to take votes from the dem and giving the presidency to McCain.

If you insist Nader didn't do that in 2000, then we can table that as irrelevant interpretations of the past. The point is that Nader could do it in 2008. And I think it's worth making sure it doesn't happen.

Posted February 24, 2008 7:54 PM by Greg London

Why does it matter a bit what Nader's motivation for running for president is? Maybe he wants to be a spoiler, maybe he doesn't care, maybe he's a Serbian covert agent, but what difference does that make to any of us? What is important is the fact that he is running. It is possible that his being on the ballot won't affect the outcome, but we can't know that will be the case; in the course of defeating McCain, or whoever emerges as the Republican nominee we must also defeat Nader soundly enough that any vote for him has no effect on the outcome.

What else is there to say?

Posted February 24, 2008 8:02 PM by Bruce Cohen (SpeakerToManagers)

Greg, type slower so I can leave! *g*

Maybe you see evidence of Nader getting support this year. I don't. I look at the third run of every third-party candidate who tried a third run, and I see no reason to worry about Nader this year. The two-party system has done what it was designed to do.

(Okay, Eugene Debs did great on his third run, but he had a strong party, and the Greens in the US are still reeling from being the scapegoats of 2000. Which may have been part of the reason they were made the scapegoats, of course.)

Posted February 24, 2008 8:03 PM by will shetterly

I know who *I* blame for 2000. I blame Jeb Bush, Katherine Harris (waste of a perfectly good first name, btw), and the rest of the Florida election crew. I blame the Republican apparachniks who staged a phony "angry mob" at the recounts. I blame the Supreme Court majority who sided with Bush and against democracy in Bush v. Gore. I blame Karl Rove. I blame Fox news. And I also blame Gore campaign who asked for a recount only in certain counties rather than a full recount of the entirety of Florida and instead of fighting to the finish stepped aside for the sake of "unity".

I don't blame Nader or Nader voters. Gore *won* the popular vote. Confused retirees in Palm Beach accidentally voting for Pat Buchanan rather than Al Gore on a messed up butterfly ballot hurt Gore more than any idealistic Greens voting Nader.

That being said, I do think Nader is a fool. I agree that the fact that I only hear from him on leap years these days chafes. You want change? Work for change. You want to run for office? Run for a state or local office. Encourage other good people to run for state and local offices. Follow the model of Paul Wellstone, instead of making another vanity run.

Posted February 24, 2008 8:12 PM by Kayjayoh

Bruce, this correction for Greg might console you: I forgot that Nader's running as an independent this time. He doesn't even have the Greens to help him. He's as irrelevant as irrelevant can be.

Posted February 24, 2008 8:13 PM by will shetterly

Bruce@42: What else is there to say?

How about

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7lgcQUQZBtE

;)

The head shake at 1:15 to 1:20 pretty much captures my emotional feeling about Nader running.

And the whole thing fairly accurately reflects what I hear when Nader talks these days.

Posted February 24, 2008 8:24 PM by Greg London

Echoing #17: How? Assume for purposes of argument that one is convinced prevention of a Nader presence on the ballot in NH, or CT where I reside, or elsewhere... what are you requesting/suggesting should be done?

Posted February 24, 2008 8:25 PM by Ewan

Let's see what Ralph said in that quote:

Asked why he should be president, the longtime consumer advocate said, “Because I got things done.” He cited a 40-year record, which he said includes saving “millions of lives,” bringing about stricter protection for food and water and fighting corporate control over Washington.

I'd have to see statistics on whether he's saved millions of lives, but stipulate he probably saved a good number in his early days advocating for auto safety.

"Stricter protection for food and water?" Um, Ralph? We just had a huge beef recall last week, and we had several other huge recalls last year. How's emasculation of the FDA going for you under that Republican regime you helped put into office?

If corporate control of politics is an issue for you, why haven't you been squalling about Dartmouth v. Woodward for the past 40 years? That's the decision which stipulated that corporations should be treated as persons under American law.

Anybody who contributes to a Nader candidacy should have his head read.

Posted February 24, 2008 8:28 PM by Linkmeister

Pfusand @40:

Not only that, she's angry, while the other candidates get neutral words.

Posted February 24, 2008 8:31 PM by Sarah

When Nader borught this up a couple of weeks ago, it was reported at Talking Poitns that he said he do it if he could get people to donate a lot of money (the number was something like $30 million) and get a bunch of lawyers to do pro bono work to get him on assorted state ballots.
This, to me, is the sign of an inflated ego: he thinks that all he has to do is get on the ballots. Using other people's time and money, not his, and doing it though the courts, not through the usual procedures.

Posted February 24, 2008 8:35 PM by P J Evans

Look, I have never voted for Nader, think he's an egotistical freak and blame him (partially) for the 2000 debacle. Nevertheless he has the right to run and (assuming he has the signatures and all that) be on the ballot. It's silly to tell people they should "work to keep Nader off the ballot in your state." I don't like it when politicians use legions of election lawyers to kick competitors off the ballot, and I'm not going to help them in this case.

Posted February 24, 2008 8:42 PM by Matt Stevens

Matt, he has the right to try to get on the ballot. We have the right to try to keep him off. Unless you believe everyone has the right to be on the ballot, there's nothing wrong with trying to keep someone off.

Posted February 24, 2008 8:48 PM by Xopher

Um...I may be confused here, but surely in order to believe that Nader helped get Bush elected in 2000 we first have to assume that the voting figures in 2000 (particularly in Florida, which someone mentioned) actually had some influence on who got in?

Posted February 24, 2008 8:50 PM by Zander

As others have said--I'd be more impressed by Nader's alleged motives if I saw him involved intensely in politics more than every four years toward the end of the presidential primary season.

Otherwise, I kinda get suspicious as to the real motive for his involvement.

If you want to build up a significant third party movement, you've gotta build it bit by bit in the various states. That's the rock on which many idealists have crashed. They don't look at change as generational; they want it all right away.

Except, perhaps, for the Dominionists. Unfortunately, those folks seem to be the ones with the right attitude for the long-term--and they're not the ones I'd prefer to see taking that point of view.

Posted February 24, 2008 8:51 PM by Joyce Reynolds-Ward

Sarah@ 49Not only that, she's angry, while the other candidates get neutral words.

That's just code for "shrill," right?

Oh well - looks like the original comment was drive-by astroturf of some sort. Screw 'em.

Posted February 24, 2008 8:52 PM by vian

Matt at 51, I am not a lawyer. And sure, Nader has the right to try all legal means to get on the ballot. I and legions of my friends have the right to use all legal means to keep him off it, mostly by holding him up to public ridicule every chance I/we get and reminding people of just how well it worked out the last time he ran.

Posted February 24, 2008 9:20 PM by Lizzy L

#48 ::: Linkmeister,

I'd have to see statistics on whether he's saved millions of lives, but stipulate he probably saved a good number in his early days advocating for auto safety.

Did he?
I know he built his early reputation on demolishing the Corvair, but as I understood it, all of it's design flaws were shared by a certain small car originally produced for a certain Godwinesque world leader, that remained in production until 2003. (Albeit in Mexico.)

(see NHTSA report PB 211-015, available here: http://www.ntis.gov/ if you have 52$. Where's Carl Malamud when you need him?)

Posted February 24, 2008 9:20 PM by Donald Delny

Joyce, you're the most recent to say that third-party candidates should work to build a third party instead of running for president. Do you believe that's possible in a two-party system? It took a conflict over slavery to give the Republicans a shot--and then they became the party of the robber barons.

Posted February 24, 2008 9:21 PM by will shetterly

#16: You wrote I think if the country is ever to move beyond a two-party system (which is only twice as nice as a one-party system), it needs many more Naders running on all sides of the spectrum.

No. If our country is ever to move beyond a two-party system, we need to abolish the electoral college - and probably our first-past-the-post voting system, as well.

If I saw Nader ever work outside of an election year to reform the U.S. electoral system so that third-party candidates would become meaningful, I would credit him with some desire to reform American democracy.

Similarly, if Nader and his people worked tirelessly to build the Green Party from the ground up, fighting to get Greens on city councils and in state legislatures across America and running candidates for the U.S. House of Representatives, I would credit him with a genuine desire to build the Greens as a legitimate third party in the U.S.

Given that he only appears every four years for a bout of spiteful, Republican-funded grandstanding, I can only conclude that he relishes the role of spoiler.

#9: You wrote It doesn't really matter anyway. In 2004, Nader got 0.38% of the vote. There's no indication he'd do any better this time.

It's not the percentage of the overall vote. If 2000 taught us nothing, it's that in American presidential campaigns the share of the overall vote is, if not precisely meaningless, then at least highly misleading. What matters is where. Nader campaigned ruthlessly in battleground states. A tiny fraction of the votes in Florida (in 2000) or Ohio (2004) was enough to tip the scales for Bush.

Posted February 24, 2008 9:29 PM by Rivka

"We will call him Crazy Eddie, if you like. He is a ... he is like me, sometimes, and he is a Brown, an idiot savant tinker, sometimes. Always he does the wrong things for excellent reasons. He does the same things over and over, and they always bring disaster, and he never learns.

"When a city has grown so overlarge and crowded that it is in immediate danger of collapse... when food and clean water flow into the city at a rate just sufficient to feed every mouth, and every hand must work constantly to keep it that way... when all transportation is involved in moving vital supplies, and none is left over to move people out of the city should the need arise... then it is that Crazy Eddie leads the movers of garbage out on strike for better working conditions."

-- Niven and Pournelle, The Mote in God's Eye

Posted February 24, 2008 9:36 PM by Joel Polowin

vian @#21: Mike B, are you really saying someone shouldn't run simply because they have passed some arbitrary age

Tangentially, I've been amused by the irony that McCain has been campaigning on the importance of the presidential power of Supreme Court nominations because the Justices are getting on in years...

<link>

Posted February 24, 2008 9:38 PM by Lis Riba

Will @ 58--I'll bite, albeit briefly, as I won't have many opportunities to comment after this until Wednesday.

To be honest, I've seen the Citizens Party, DSOC, the Greens, and the Libs up close and personal. None of them have done what I deem necessary for a good grassroots third-party organizational effort to succeed. Part of that is because the good activists either get burned out or coopted by the mainstream parties.

Part of that is because too often the third parties are organized around ideology instead of a serious drive to earn power--and that includes those to the right of center as well as the left. You need people and money to pull it off, and I've not seen an effort with both yet.

Also, I feel that success with a third party needs a coherent, long-term, 50-state, 30 year plan. So far, no one's done it. They want to make a big splash instead of doing the steady legwork to build a viable alternative.

First, you have to create a presence on local levels. That means money and recruitment of volunteers plus candidates.

Then you have to build that presence into a regional, then statewide, then multi-state presence.

Then you go nationwide.

It's doable. The fact is, many people just look at the established parties and decide that trying to spend thirty years taking them over is more effective than starting from scratch. But there are sufficient disaffected sorts out there that if someone was serious about it, and did the sort of long-range planning, fundraising, and recruitment to make it happen, it would.

Unfortunately, damned few people in politics are committed to the long-range plan--and they tend to be the right wing Christian sorts. Everyone else wants quick rewards.

Could I do it? Probably. But no one would give me the money and health care benefits I'd require to do it--and, besides, I'd much rather write, ski, and play with my horse when I'm not at my day job. I did the political scene when I was younger. It would take mucho buckos to drag me back into it again.

Posted February 24, 2008 9:46 PM by Joyce Reynolds-Ward

Donald Delney @ 57

I owned a Corvair (the 1963 model, from the year after the one that Nader was so exercised about) for six years or so. It did indeed have a couple of the problems he complained about: it did leak some exhaust gas into the cabin, though not enough to cause me discomfort, just enough to notice the smell, and it did have a pronounced toe-in on the rear wheels causing it to oversteer in curves. In fact, I flipped a '62 model over because it oversteered on a curve once. But that accident was because I was 17, had just gotten my license, and didn't know how to deal with situations like that. In all, yes the Corvair had problems, but no more than the Chevy Impala I had afterward which steered like a truck, making it somewhat unsafe in situations requiring fast maneuvering on the highway.

And for all that Nader pats himself on the back over the Corvair, he really hasn't done much else substantive since then.

Posted February 24, 2008 9:47 PM by Bruce Cohen (SpeakerToManagers)

First Reaction: Spoiler or no, Nader is an egotistical idiot. His belief that he can accomplish anything by this method bears no relationship to reality. As several people said above, at this point if he actually cared about reforming the system, he'd be doing something else. More often than once every four years. He might even have run early in the campaign and then dropped out, like Kucinich or Paul.

Second Reaction: Why panic? The Greens have disowned him. The Democrats who voted for him in 2000 are disillusioned with him. Either of this year's Democratic candidates could beat the Platonic hybrid of Gore and Kerry while standing on one foot and singing "Crocodile Rock" off-key. Meanwhile, even the Republicans can't get excited about the Republican candidates. Nader's just not as tempting as he was 8 years ago. I speak here as someone who voted for him 8 years ago (in a massively blue state that I knew Gore would win by a landslide, and he did, please don't lynch me).

Third Reaction: Has everyone forgotten that we lost the 2000 election because the Republicans stole it? They won the all-important computer demographic. The head of Diebold said in Time Magazine that he would do everything in his power to deliver Ohio to Bush, and he kept his promise. But there are a lot more states, Ohio included, that require paper trails now. That still, of course, leaves the low-tech election-stealing methods of trying to keep poor people and black people from voting. If we work our tails off to keep the election fair, Nader is a side issue.

Posted February 24, 2008 10:07 PM by R. Emrys

The point is that Nader could do it in 2008.

Yeah, and Osama bin Laden might uncover the Zeta Reticulan flying saucers, which were buried underneath the ruins of Babylon in Iraq and moved, prior to the American invasion, over the border into Iran where they've been secretly used to accelerate their antimatter bomb research program, and crash them into the Ground Zero memorial, killing millions of patriotic liberal Americans in Manhattan just before the election, and siphoning votes away from the Democratic candidate and putting Satan himself on the oval throne of America.

Do any of the people who believe Nader is a threat to Democrats in 2008 realize how abjectly nutty they sound?

Posted February 24, 2008 10:15 PM by j h woodyatt

Rivka @59, "Nader campaigned ruthlessly in battleground states" is often said, but it isn't true. See here.

Joel @60, yes, Niven and Pournelle like cheap labor.

Joyce @62, the Greens and the Libertarians have been working for decades. The Socialist Party and the Farmer-Labor Party took the long, slow approach. But the money is with the Biparty. Saying a new party should plan a 50-year-campaign is only another way to keep new parties irrelevant. The more I observe the Biparty, the more I'm impressed at how beautifully it works. It's the beauty of the tiger though--not so easy for gazelles to admire.

Posted February 24, 2008 10:16 PM by will shetterly

"Why panic? The Greens have disowned him."

Sadly, he won the Green primary race in California earlier this month. I think it's possible that the Greens who would have disowned him have already burned out and left the party. I'm very sad about this outcome.

Posted February 24, 2008 10:20 PM by j h woodyatt

Nader.....WOW!!!

Goes to show how money can influence an election. If I had the money I would probably run too, its incredible to see how a man that says he cares so much about the country, etc is willing to divide the country even more. He knows he is NOT going to win, nor does he represent nothing new, yet he is running....running for what? If you want to do something useful, why don’t you help the Democratic Party win the election with your cash and end the politics that have dug this huge hole for us? or maybe form and organization that helps the people of this country police the government regardless of who the President is? or is that a waste of money in your eyes? Not that your run is a waste or anything like that...(sarcasm, just in case you missed it)

Please, if you really want to make this country a better place, put your money to good use and don’t throw it away on another failed run...one must recognize ones limits, accept the facts of life and do the best we can with what we have....didn’t you learn that in school?

Posted February 24, 2008 10:30 PM by Ray

I personally hold Nader at least partially responsible for the last 7+ years of Absolute World Chaos that has been the Bush Administration.
One has to wonder if there are any Nader close relatives that could possibly grab him, shake him violently, and scream at him "What The Hell Are You Thinking!!!??? What The Hell Do You Plan To Accomplish With This Additional Insanity???!!!
At one time in the distant past, I admired Nader for his ideals, but he is simply a 'nut-job' now in my book. Ralph...are you familiar with the term 'KnuckleHead'?

Posted February 24, 2008 10:52 PM by Duck Fuhbya

Graydon @ 36: "American democracy can work, and has worked pretty well at various times in the past, but it takes a really widespread, well founded, trembling belief on the part of the various elites that their options are democracy or being fed to the mob, possibly in pieces."

Hmm. I have the impression that this is the only case under which democracy ever works anywhere.

Posted February 24, 2008 11:00 PM by heresiarch

jh@65: Do any of the people who believe Nader is a threat to Democrats in 2008 realize how abjectly nutty they sound?

Well, "nutty" is subjective, so I'll have to say that for me, personally, and speaking on a purely relative scale, the above sounds less nutty than the people who insist that Nader didn't affect the outcome in any way in 2000.

Osama bin Laden might uncover the Zeta Reticulan flying saucers, which were buried underneath the ruins of Babylon in Iraq and moved, prior to the American invasion, over the border into Iran where they've been secretly used to accelerate their antimatter bomb research program, and crash them into the Ground Zero memorial, killing millions of patriotic liberal Americans in Manhattan just before the election, and siphoning votes away from the Democratic candidate and putting Satan himself on the oval throne of America.

And speaking of nutty, how nutty is it to compare (1) the possibility that a third party candidate might siphon a couple percent of the votes away from a democratic candidate and let a republican win in a close election, and compare it with (2) your strawman statement involving flying saucers and Satan himself as if they're equally "nutty"?

If by nutty, you are referring to something that actually happened in history, such as Nader's 2000 siphon of 2% of the vote in a 50-50 election, then I would not call that nutty. But if by nutty, you mean that flying saucers and the devil himself are something to worry about, then yes I would call that nutty.

Posted February 24, 2008 11:08 PM by Greg London

By the way, obfuscating political candidate's names with rot-13 doesn't do the trick any more, as Google indexes those words just fine.

e4|cu a4q3e
e0a c4h|

3ny(u 4nqr3
384 (nhy

Well, leeting the names before rot13ing them (or vicey versky) does a better job, but the visual impact is diminished. Hmmm....

Posted February 24, 2008 11:10 PM by Earl Cooley III

#33 ::: will shetterly
Thanks for your reply. I was just looking to understand, not sure that I do but thanks anyway.

Posted February 24, 2008 11:11 PM by Brenda von Ahsen

"And speaking of nutty, how nutty is it to compare (1) the possibility that a third party candidate might siphon a couple percent of the votes away from a democratic candidate and let a republican win in a close election, and compare it with (2) your strawman statement involving flying saucers and Satan himself as if they're equally "nutty"?"

That'd be pretty nutty, which is why I didn't make that comparison.

Posted February 24, 2008 11:15 PM by j h woodyatt

[The following is not entirely fair, and uses several rhetorical devices that I do not endorse outside of satire. Nevertheless, sing it to the tune of "A Policeman's Lot Is Not A Happy One".]

When politicians cannot get positions
They foment little Machiavellian schemes
Advancing dark and cynical ambitions
Wrapped up in their constituencies' dreams.
  My feelings I with difficulty smother
  When my voter's solemn duty's to be done.
  Though he's an awfully compromised old mother:
  Ralph Nader's lot is not happy one!

Say not that his career has popped a suture
From stubbornness or simple naked greed.
He'll drive democracy into the future
To prove that it's unsafe at any speed.
  Oh if you're sure you're purehearted and brainy
  There's no need to ask what your works have done.
  (Just ask Nobel, von Braun, or Richard Cheney.)
  Ralph Nader's lot is not a happy one!

Surrounded by a waning adulation
He reminisces on what might have been:
Might once he have wrought good upon the nation
And not greased the Republican machine?
  He'd scrabble through his soul to find the answer
  But looking there just makes him want to run.
  (He'll stop campaigning if he's linked to cancer.)
  Ralph Nader's lot is not a happy one!

Posted February 24, 2008 11:28 PM by Lighthill

.

Spam posted from 24.164.24.143

Posted February 24, 2008 11:29 PM by Comment spammer Seb

Brenda @73, it is tricky. Believers in two-party politics expect one of two positions on Nader: you're supposed to think he's a spoiler, or you're supposed to think he's a messiah. But those of us who don't believe in two-party politics can take many positions.

In my case, I don't like Al From's politics, but I respect his poll results, just as I respect the poll results that said Gore won in Florida in 2000.

And I really hate hearing so-called Democrats calling for less democracy. I want a change in the system, but Bipartisans have give us "damned if you do, damned if you don't" politics where third parties who work to change the system are irrelevant and third parties who confront the system are denounced as "spoilers."

Rivka @59, apologies for repeating myself in my earlier response. I constantly fall into thinking "Someone is wrong on the internet." It may well be that Nader serves a better function as a scapegoat than he ever did as a hope for an alternative to corporatist politics.

Posted February 24, 2008 11:41 PM by will shetterly

Oh look - another driveby. Mind you, this one's a bit less articulate than the last one.

" ... intentionly bombarded with with Corporate propaganda ... " indeed.

Posted February 24, 2008 11:42 PM by vian

The basic problem with a Nader candidacy is that it doesn't address any legitimate concern raised by people like Will and Rivka. If my doctor tells me that because of my digestive problems I should stop eating meat, my response that my seafood consumption is now all local-catch organically handled and that I've replaced all my plastic bags with canvas ones isn't helpful. The president doesn't have much say over election laws (though he does over their enforcement, which is another reason that the line about no differences between major candidates is such a contemptible sort of lie). So it doesn't matter how many people vote for Nader if what they want to do is change election laws.

People who want to change election laws need an organization capable of sustained effort on that front between elections, and they need to elect representatives at all levels, and they need to elect supportive judges, and a bunch of other things. The chief executive office isn't altogether negligible for such an effort, but it's way low on the list of priorities...for people who'd actually like to achieve their goal, as opposed to simply affirming their own correctness without risk of the messy complications that come from holding real authority.

Posted February 24, 2008 11:42 PM by Bruce Baugh

Just because no one has explicitly stated the electoral issue:

We win or lose presidential elections state by state, so ignore the national polls for the moment. Now for a given state, say we have parties A, B, and C. It's possible that party A would win a contest between just A and B, but party B would win a three way contest between A, B, and C. The presence of C effectively swings all the electoral votes for a state from A to B.

In a close race, this doesn't have to be very many votes. It just has to be enough to switch which party gets the plurality. Now, in real life, it's not this clear cut since we can't actually compare the results of two different ballots. (e.g., we can't know if everyone who voted for party C would have voted at all, much less for party A.) The principle stands though.

This is why arguing Nader's ineffectiveness based on how poorly Nader polls nationally fails to convince me. It's not about the national polls. In a suitably close race, it could be a handful of voters in one state who swing the plurality from one candidate to another. (I hope this presidential race will not be that close.) Even state by state, it's not about how well Nader polls. It's about whether Nader's presence changes who has the plurality of voters in a given state.

Note that this argument is blissfully independent of whatever Nader's actual intentions are. He doesn't actually have to want or intend these ramifications for them to happen. They may be a consequence of his mere entrance into the race and campaigning, how ever he chooses to do it.

Posted February 24, 2008 11:51 PM by John Chu

Bruce, you do see the Catch-22 there?

A couple more thoughts:

Seb may be a driveby, but he's right about one thing: just because you haven't seen what Nader's done in the last four years doesn't mean he hasn't done anything.

And Nader's as much a victim of the Biparty as anyone. He sees Obama and Clinton take corporate money and promise to protect corporate interests, so he runs again, knowing he'll lose, yet knowing that the alternative is to be silent while the corporations destroy the earth.

We don't have fifty years to build a new political party in the US. Global warming is moving too quickly. Either the US finds a new direction, or the next generation will have good cause to hate us. I'm voting for the lesser evil this year because the lesser evil will do a little that might slow the process. But neither Obama or Clinton are going to bite the hands that feed them. I doubt Edwards would have either, but he barked enough that he might have, so he was kept out of the game.

Well, that's hardly the cheeriest note to end on, but what's ahead calls for more than empty cheer. To those of you who believe Clinton or Obama will save us, I can only say I pray you're right.

Posted February 24, 2008 11:57 PM by will shetterly

i started to post this, then erased it.

I'm going to post.

Someone needs to find a farking stake. We need a Van Helsing NOW. to take care of Nader.

Posted February 25, 2008 12:00 AM by Paula Helm Murray

Fragano Ledgister @ #15: Excellent point. Thanks for sharing that.

Nader is an attention whore, pure and simple. He's learned to game his little part of the system, and apparently has some backers lined up. I can't help but wonder at the comparative figures of their political affiliations. His picks for causes in corporate America have been capricious as well. Bruce Cohen's example of the Corvair is just one, where the Corvair (actually an enthusiast's car) was vilified, but the Volkswagen and others with similar problems were barely mentioned. Certain drugs and other products become major issues, while others with worse problems are ignored. It's hard for me to look at the Nader Institute's choices for action without wondering if there are other influences besides concern for the populace.

I've noticed that the BBC is making a big deal of Nader's announcement. I'm sure anything that might help bring Ol' Blood 'n' Guts McCain to power is regarded with horror in most parts of Europe.

Posted February 25, 2008 12:05 AM by LMB MacAlister

Will @ 66.

Oh please. Don't try to fool an old-time activist. The Libs and Greens are nothing, and they have been nothing for a very long time. They aren't about taking power, or even speaking truth to power--they're all about ideology, nothing more.

If the Farmer-Labor party was to have succeeded, they needed to branch out of the Midwest. They didn't.

And sneering at the 30 year plan (not 50, as you said)--ah yes, just looking for instant gratification, yet again. Just like Nader.

I repeat; no one's seriously tried it. They've either been centered in ideology with no pragmatic view of the political scene, or they've focused on big image, one-shot, big money campaigns.

The ones who are closest to pulling it off and who have maintained consistency are the Dominionists. Sadly, I fear they may yet come out the winners, just because our kind is either into instant gratification or self-destruction.

Oh yeah. I do have at least state-level political cred (or did, anyway, once upon a time before I walked away from it) as a party hack. I've done the grassroots organization stuff, done the lobbyist stuff, and worked enough campaigns to know what both victory and defeat tastes like.

Posted February 25, 2008 12:08 AM by Joyce Reynolds-Ward

I still don't see how "Work to keep Nader off the ballot in your state" translates into anything other than "To ensure your favored candidate wins, work to deny others the chance to vote for their favored candidate".

As John Chu (80) says, a first-past-the-post race with more than two candidates always risks an unrepresentative result. I wonder, then, if anyone here would take the anti-Nader position to its logical conclusion and argue that all such races should be legally limited to two candidates? It's inconsistent to object to Nader but not to, say, Ross Perot, or a possible Ron Paul bid.

In an election where A defeats B by a margin of n, any group of non-B-voters greater than n can be accused with equal justice of "having cost B the election". It doesn't matter if they stayed home, sat on the fence for a while and ended up voting A, or voted for C even though they preferred B to A. Those are all legitimate choices, and the democratically minded should be glad to see voters getting such choices, not trying to withhold them.

Posted February 25, 2008 12:12 AM by Tom Recht

Will: No, I genuinely don't. Saying "If you want to change the rules, change the roster of people who can change them, after building public support for the change, rather than pushing the guaranteed loss of someone who couldn't affect them even if he won" doesn't seem like Catch-22 at all to me.

It might be nice to wave a wand and getter a better electoral system in one fell swoop. It'd be nice if the Civil War had led directly to full social justice for African-Americans in the 1870s, too. Unfortunately, stuff takes time. It also takes aiming at relevant targets. Nobody's even trying to explain how a Nader victory could actually help - at best it's "send a message" stuff, and Woody Allen nailed that one. ("If you want to send the audience a message, use Western Union.") No quantity of worthiness of cause exempts you from the reality that change happens when you change things at the points where different people with different attitudes can change the rules.

Also, Will, remember that regulars here have seen Nader in action in the last four years. We've been watching our friends Teresa and Xopher suffer because of just one of his awesome crusades of recent years. I suppose we could go out in search of more of his victims, of course.

Posted February 25, 2008 12:17 AM by Bruce Baugh

Seb:

Thank you Ralph, for all the good things you've done to protect the PEOPLE of this Country. Amazing how quickly they forget, or perhaps they just don't know. Almost everyone's lives, or that of friends and relatives of theirs, has been improved and made safer because of you

Well Seb, ol' buddy, if you weren't a smug drive-by poster without the brains God gave a grape you would have done a search on this site and found that the lives of one of the moderators, and one of the regular posters as well, have been made worse and less safe because of actions taken by a Nader-created group.

You may argue (assuming you can figure out how to use a search box for something besides "Nader") that because I'm a friend of Dave Howell and once had a pleasant ten-minute conversation with Teresa that I have a bias. And you'd be right. Because neither has ever drifted into ongoing conversations I've been having with others, told me I believe a bunch of poo, and then cha-cha'd on their merrily closed-minded way. Actually, I'd have Dave in for a brain scan if he did...he'd be the AntiDave.

Do I need to walk around the block? Probably.

Posted February 25, 2008 12:20 AM by Bruce E. Durocher II

Please pardon me. While there was quite a lot of evidence for vote-counting fraud in the 2000 election, some of it computer related, the Diebold quote about delivering Ohio was in reference to the 2004 election. My wife pointed this out to me and a quick google confirms it. Clearly I can't keep my stolen elections straight; I hope no one trusts me with a butterfly ballot in November.

Sadly, he won the Green primary race in California earlier this month.

That's deeply unfortunate. Was anyone running against him?

Posted February 25, 2008 12:24 AM by R. Emrys

The American system wasn't designed to be democratic; it was designed to keep the passions of the mob from swaying things on a momentary level, but to allow long-term concerns of substantial numbers to be addressed, while allowing space for individual liberty.

It's worked pretty well over the years, and one reason is that the two-party system coopts people who actually want change and are willing to compromise to get it, while leaving the loony fringe outside the corridors of power.

Not perfectly, but it does work. Which is the ultimate test of any governing system.

Posted February 25, 2008 12:37 AM by Tony Zbaraschuk

Can I ask a somewhat silly question? What difference would be made if everyone in the US (not just those who remember to register and those who are able to turn out on the day, and those who can be bothered) was required to vote?

I ask this because I can see one thing in particular which is leading to the solidification (or indeed, the ossification) of the US two-party system: low voter turnout. It lowers the bar remarkably, and reduces the electoral hurdles dramatically. If the voter turnout is sufficiently low (and let's face it, when less than half of the country is voting at all, this means you only need to convince about a quarter of the country to vote for you) then it makes stealing elections, spoiling elections and similar a damn sight easier. Given this situation, surely the best way to go about foiling the sorts of tactics being promulgated all over the place here is to start urging friends, colleagues, and random strangers in the street to exercise their right to vote.

Why not make it a requirement for being able to complain about the government for the years between 2008 and 2012? If you didn't vote, you don't get to bitch about what happened as a result.

Posted February 25, 2008 12:47 AM by Meg Thornton

Joyce @84, I was just returning to share this article about Nader at the World Socialist Web Site. It's far from pro-Nader, but Nader makes a point that's pertinent here: the corporatists are the slow and successful folks. Nixon caved to citizen groups, but from then on, thanks to Republicans and DLCers, corporations have ruled. The Dominionists are merely one of the corporatists' many tools.

As for a 30-year plan, it doesn't look like we have that long either. 2020 is going to be hell, based on current water use projections. And I fear those are conservative, because global climate change keeps moving faster than science predicts.

Bruce @86, maybe it is possible for a third party to take root in a two-party system. But an awful lot of people have failed at it. I would believe that meant the American people were satisfied with Republicans and Democrats, yet when they're polled, they're usually to the left of the Democrats. So I conclude the system is a failure if it's meant for the people, but a great success if it's meant for the rich.

Posted February 25, 2008 12:49 AM by will shetterly

John Chu @ #80 & Tom Recht @ #85: I don't have to look too far to see how independent candidacies can create an unrepresentative result. When Idiot Son left his cozy job as Texas Governor for his new position as Commander-and-Chief of Freedom in 2001, his lieutenant-governor, Rick Perry, took over as governor. Governor Good Hair (RIP, Molly) is like The Shrub without the finesse. He won a full 4-year term in 2002, and by 2006 had pretty much finished handing the State of Texas over to the business interests that have taken such good care of him. I'll spare you the nasty details.

By 2006, many Texans were willing to do almost anything to get Perry and his cronies out of power. These days, in Texas, most of the races are actually decided in the Republican primary, so it stood to reason that was going to be the governor's battle ground. Kay Bailey Hutchison strongly considered running for governor, and Carole Keeton Strayhorn, then State Comptroller (a strong position in the strange way Texas state government is set up), announced she'd run against him in the primary. Senator Hutchison decided to run again for US Senate, and Strayhorn was threatened with a Rove-inspired primary campaign, so she withdrew and announced she'd run as an independent. Kinky Friedman, a Texas singer and detective-story writer and general colorful character, had already announced his independent candidacy. Chris Bell was the Democratic Party's candidate.

Effectively, even though the Republican Party had every other state-wide office wrapped up, there was a strong "anybody but Perry" feeling that made the winner of the governor's race simply a question of whom the ABP candidates would unite behind. Problem is, none of them dropped out. Chris Bell, the Democrat, wasn't initially given much chance. He proved an excellent debater with a strong set of policy statements, however, and gained strong support. But when election day came, Perry had 39.0%; Bell, 29.8%; Strayhorn, 18.1%; and Friedman, 12.4%.

There are no run-offs for Texas state offices--the winner of the plurality wins the election. So we have a governor for four more years who 61% of the voters voted against. And many of us are convinced that, had there been a celebrity death-match between Bell and the two independents to determine a single ABP candidate, we'd actually have an honest governor who the majority of Texans supported.

As to the weird state elections laws that allowed for that, I'm hoping there's enough of a coat-tails effect here this year that a bill changing that might actually have a chance of being introduced.

Posted February 25, 2008 12:57 AM by LMB MacAlister

Will #81: Nader [...] sees Obama and Clinton take corporate money and promise to protect corporate interests, so he runs again, knowing he'll lose, yet knowing that the alternative is to be silent while the corporations destroy the earth.

So what you're saying here is that Nader wants to fight the corporatists, so instead of being silent (which won't stop the corporatists), he runs for president (which also won't stop the corporatists). This strikes me as a bit lacking as a defense of Nader's actions.

If Nader wants a voice in government, he should run for Congress. He could probably get elected to the House if he chooses his district carefully. Or could have, nine years ago.

As far as corporatist candidates and global warming goes, Al Gore (a DLC-approved candidate) has done more in the past eight years to advance the fight against global warming than Nader has in his whole life.

Posted February 25, 2008 12:59 AM by Avram

Matt, he has the right to try to get on the ballot. We have the right to try to keep him off. Unless you believe everyone has the right to be on the ballot, there's nothing wrong with trying to keep someone off.

Listen: "Trying to keep someone off" means an active effort, not sitting on your butt and praying Nader doesn't get enough signatures. It sounds like active (if presumably legal) sabotage -- in New York, for instance, hiring lawyers to check every signature, checking for trivial violations of New York's arcane election laws. When Republicans use techniques like these we say, rightly, that they're trying to suppress turnout. It's no better when Democrats do it to limit competition, even against a demagogue like Nader.

Again, I'm a Democrat who hates Nader, but I'm appalled that Making Light's readers don't find Macdonald's statement controversial.

Posted February 25, 2008 1:05 AM by Matt Stevens

Will, are you bothering to read what I write or just composing word jazz based on free association? I'm talking about what I think it would take to open up American politics. Single transferrable vote, Concordet, whatever - I don't have any strong preference, partly because I'n not as well informed as I'd like and distracted by other stuff at the moment, but broadly speaking, any system that would take preferences beyond #1 into account, provide for some measure of proportional representation, whatever.

I'm saying that running unsuccessful presidential candidates doesn't help that. I'm saying that getting changes at local levels (up through the state) and making a sustained effort over the long haul to raise public interest and sympathy would. Do you disagree? If so, please explain just what good you think it does to keep pushing the candidacy of a moral cretin like Nader, as opposed to working on any level where change of opinion and practice might be possible.

Or don't. Keep free-associating if it makes you happier. Whatever.

Personally, I want someone with the organizational skills to get to work on an actual campaign to improve US electoral systems. I would give them money. If my health were to improve, I'd give them my time and effort. What I don't want to see is more public masturbation that either does nothing or tilts the odds somewhat in favor of the worst candidates around, justified by...damned if I even understand the rationales, and it's not like explanations are ever forthcoming.

I would rather be a contented person making progress toward important goals than someone with the mixture of rage and frustration I keep feeling these days. And your flavor of political misdirection isn't helping a bit, Will.

Posted February 25, 2008 1:18 AM by Bruce Baugh

R. Emrys @ 88: Was anyone running against him?

Yes, but the only other one anyone has ever heard of before was— wait for it— Cynthia McKinney.

Both McKinney and Nader are also candidates for President for the Peace and Freedom Party. Neither of these people are Greens, and they couldn't give a fnork less about the pragmatic requirements of party-building. They're just using the existing multi-state organization of the G and P/F parties— such as it is— as a convenient springboard for their independent campaigns.

The paranoid in the back of my medulla has two alternative explanations for what's happening here, both of which I find attractive, though not plausible enough to really believe them: A) the GOP is fueling these "independent" runs by McKinney and Nader for all the reasons mentioned already in this thread; B) the DLC is fueling them as a way to crush whatever serious interest in building a progressive alternative to the Democratic Party may potentially arise around the Green Party.

The most plausible explanation is that the Greens are just flaming out according to the usual trajectory of the third party movements that run out of gas. The burned out husk of a party still has a national presence and ballot lines in enough states that they're a tempting hijack target for assclowns like Nader and McKinney.

I've never been more demoralized about politics in my life. The D's have a long goddamn way to go before I'm going to let them sweet-talk me back into being their houseboy again. I want to believe they can finally unfnork themselves and start delivering on the hopes and promises they've been selling for so long. I want to believe. I don't.

And... spare me the "Yes We Can" spirituals until November is over, and you can start singing "Yes We Are" instead. After nearly twenty years in silicon valley, and the last seven at a certain formerly-stripey fruit company, I've grown constitutionally immune to the Reality Distortion Field effect of highly charismatic executives. Yes, it's very nice when everything goes well, and your guy wins big. When it doesn't go well, and your guy loses, it can be the mother of all bummers when the charisma doesn't work anymore.

Posted February 25, 2008 1:35 AM by j h woodyatt

*RALPHIE NADER ROTFLMFAOOOOOOO*
"WHO", Dredged him up? = Reincarnated him????
yuppperrrr, 'BU$H & McCAIN', hoping to put the skids under OMAMBA, "ANY TAKERS ON THIS BET"?????

Posted February 25, 2008 1:44 AM by Gail Carpenter

I watched my Meet the Press tape this afternoon, and Nader looks sick. The left side of his face looks like he's had a stroke, and a big one, his eyes blinked rapidly, and he was supporting himself heavily on the table with his forearms. He'd lift his arms up to gesture every so often, but then drop them heavily back down. I can't believe anybody would vote for him if they saw that.

Posted February 25, 2008 1:44 AM by Marilee

It's time to end the 50.1% majority elections so that Nader doesn't matter. I don't know that Hillary can do that, but maybe Obama can.

Posted February 25, 2008 1:50 AM by Six

No argument there, Six, though it's a tough fight thanks to the incredibly dishonest media environment. One of the reasons I'm favoring Obama is that he seems more likely to pull it off, which will help shape the environment for more significant change later.

Posted February 25, 2008 2:00 AM by Bruce Baugh

Avram @93, I'm not defending Nader's decision to run; I'm only defending his right to run. In words that will never be forgotten, "I pity the fool!"

And, yes, Gore seems like he's benefitted from his choice to accept the Republican theft of the election. His decision not to run again in 2004 speaks volumes. If you look at earlier elections screwed up by the Electoral College, when the shafted candidate ran again, he won. Gore effectively let Bush win twice.

Bruce @95, I'm not pushing Nader. I haven't been pushing Nader since 2000. I have accepted the nature of the system we're in.

The two-party