A Last Word on Nader

Ralph Nader and Peter Camejo make the argument that asking them not to run would be to abandon millions of voters whose ideas they represent.

In a February 2004 appearance on Meet The Press, Nader said to Tim Russert, "You'd never find that type of thing [resistance to a third party] in Canada or Western democracies in Europe. It is an offense to deny millions of people who might want to vote for our candidacy an opportunity to vote for our candidacy. Instead, they [the Republicans and Democrats] want to say, 'No, we're not going to let you have an opportunity to vote,' for our candidacy."

Thom Hartmann addresses this argument quite well. He points out that the Canada and the Western European democracies Nader is talking about have proportional representation rather than our winner takes all system. He argues that in the winner take all system we have, third parties mean less democracy not more. Hartmann gives the following example in support of his view.

A good example of this happened in the 2002 election in my state of Vermont, where the Republican candidates became Governor and Lieutenant Governor with 45 percent and 41 percent of the vote respectively because each had more votes than his Democratic or Progressive opponents alone. (Example: Republican Brian Dubie - 41%; Democrat Peter Shumlin - 32%; Progressive Anthony Pollina - 25%. The Republican "won.") The majority of Vermont voters selected liberal or progressive candidates, but conservatives are in charge of the state - the exact anti-democratic result that gave some of the Framers nightmares.

Nader may be right that a few million voters that support him would not be given a choice at the ballot that reflects their views. However, this discounts the fact that he will deprive even more people of success in their desire to get rid of George W. Bush in favor of John Kerry. So what's the best solution?

The simple solution is to institute IRV in the United States, a step that many communities across the country have already taken. But to do this at the national level will require the agreement and participation of at least one of the two major parties - which is why many Progressives are supporting the Greens and, at the same time, infiltrating and becoming active in the Democratic Party.

It's similar to the strategy conservatives successfully used in the 1970s after the 1964 defeat of Barry Goldwater, when they proceeded to infiltrate and ultimately take control of the Republican Party and then bring Reagan to power. As progressives do the same with the Democratic Party - while still helping keep the Green Party and other progressive movements strong - we can then use the Democratic Party to push for IRV, re-enforcement of the Sherman Anti-Trust Act, an end to "corporate personhood," and other progressive and truly democratic reforms.

This year I am supporting the Democratic party with my financial donations and the Green Party with my voter registration with the Green Party and a vote for David Cobb as I live in the redest of red states. I will also support efforts for electoral reform.

Posted by Chris at August 6, 2004 02:31 PM | TrackBack