Brian,Here we see more propaganda designed to avoid grappling with any substantive issues. What, exactly, are these "practical problems?" Do they inconvenience _you_ in any way? Does the addition of a third candidate _confuse_ people?
Many of your comments are thoughtful and insightful. However, your refusal to understand the practical problems inherent in introducing a third candidate into an election appalls me.
If you're talking about the problems third parties have in getting into a race-- the petitions, the vote drives, etc.-- then it's _their_ problem, and party loyalists such as yourself ought to be _grateful_ that others face such obstacles.
Perhaps voters who wentNo, it didn't. Look at how badly Gore botched that election. Here he was, a sitting Vice-President, with the economy booming, and a President who was enjoying substantial approval ratings _despite_ those crummy scandals. He went into the race with a twenty-point lead. He came out of the race with an extremely narrow lead, and couldn't even carry his home state.
with Nader last election were disgusted enough to make a stand. But the
reality of that act, voting for Nader, left what happened a certainty.
And as for "certainty," exactly how "certain" was it that Florida would turn out to be such a mess? Have you _ever_ seen a spectacle like that in your life? And how foreseeable was it that the election would be turned over to the Supreme Court for the final decision? So spare me this nonsense about how "voting for Nader left what happened a certainty."
There are two questions I would appreciate your answering for me. 1/This year, the imperative is to get rid of Bush, who turned out to be far worse than anyone ever dreamed. And between the raw numbers and the Democrats' smear campaign against the man, Nader just won't have any real impact.
What led you to decide not to vote for him this election?
Nope. There was _no_ reason to think that. For one thing, you're claiming that Bush actually _won_. Gore, for all of his faults, did win the popular vote.2/ Surely you knew when you voted for him last time that his running would make it easier for Bush to win?
But look at what you're saying. Your presumption is that any vote that _isn't_ given to the Democrats works for the Republicans. Perhaps, in a zero-sum game, that might be true. But this is simply a rationale for authoritarianism; I heard the _same_ arguments made against Howard Dean, whose candidacy was seen as siphoning votes and support from more tractable front-runners as Kerry. It's mainly a scare-tactic, which actually says, "Don't you _dare_ vote your conscience: it could spell doom for the rest of us." One could use your logic to say that any criticism of President Bush amounts to "aid and comfort" for perceived enemies, like Saddam Hussein or Al Qaeda.
You're saying that a vote for Nader is support for Bush. No, it isn't. It's a vote for Nader.
What was your reasoning then for doing so? OrMy reasoning was very simple. Bush was worthless, and Gore was a centrist hack unlikely to present any significant change. Ralph Nader had a forty-year track record of activism, legislative fighting, and public education, and he presented a far more cogent and informed view of the State of the Union than either of them. He was, frankly, someone I wanted to see in the Oval Office. How often does such a figure get on the ballot? I didn't want to pass up the opportunity to actually vote _for_ someone. So I voted for him. (And depending on what the Democrats do this year, I may do it again.)
did the significance of either candidate's winning mean little or
nothing to you?
This was another thing about the Democrats that bothered me. In a democracy, a citizen's vote is their say in public policy. It's not the only voice they have, of course-- there's letter-writing public protest and the like. But a vote is a voter's statement.
But nowadays, people are told that they must "weigh" their vote carefully, or use it "strategically," or face certain "realities" about politics. (This sometimes includes chatter about "wasting" a vote, which implies that a vote has material worth.) A lot of this is just quasi-intellectual ego-tripping: smart people wanting to feel more wised-up and pragmatic, so they play-act at being political strategists. But the net result of this mystification is always the same: vote for the party's candidate, and if you even _try_ to do anything different, or even vote your conscience, you're providing aid and comfort to the enemy.
----
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to the
list named "UnivCity." To unsubscribe or for archive information, see
<http://www.purple.com/list.html>.
