OPINION & EDITORIAL
All available options
Looking for a print version?
Simply choose ‘Print’ on your computer and a printer-friendly document will be generated.
Also by Badger Herald Editorial Board:
- A security fee-for-all (December 11, 2007)
- Farewell, Chancellor (December 10, 2007)
- $$FC (December 6, 2007)
- In a bind (December 5, 2007)
- Entitlement Town (December 4, 2007)
Related Stories:
- Election ethics (October 20, 2004)
- $1.85 worth of (wage) difference (October 1, 2004)
- Responsibility for voting on students (October 29, 2004)
- Letters to the Editor (October 20, 2004)
- Candidates spew monotone rhetoric in absence of much-needed Nader (October 4, 2004)
by Badger Herald Editorial Board
Tuesday, October 5, 2004
Last week marked the end of a nearly month-long brouhaha pitting noted activist and Independent presidential candidate Ralph Nader against the Democratic Party. Friday, the state Supreme Court ruled Friday that Nader achieved “substantial compliance” with Wisconsin’s mandate for appearing on a ballot. This ruling follows a bizarre episode of legal drama involving the famed consumer activist, several judges, the Democratic Party and — in the true spirit of Madison — countless students on both sides.
The Court is right in finding Nader has reached at least the minimum threshold for ballot access. There has never been any substantive question that the candidate gathered enough signatures statewide or did so in a squeakily ethical manner. The only controversy has been a peculiar technicality involving a single elector’s place of residence. Indeed, the decision is a classic victory of substance over form and one we applaud.
The notion of democracy — especially the brand of representative democracy sported at American polls every Election Day — is that the people may choose any viable candidate and are not bullied into selecting from an overly narrow list of big-party politicians. That the plateau to appear on a ballot is so meager in most states is merely a manifestation of the American notion that choices belong in the hands of the people, as citizens are intelligent enough to make their own governance decisions. A step away from this ideology cannot help but to conjure thoughts of places where ballot access is controlled by the government, not the people — places that include red China and Saddam Hussein’s former Iraq.
In a country where Teddy Roosevelt can bring dignity to the Bull Moose Party, Jesse Ventura can emerge a winner over two lifetime politicians and Arnold Schwarzenegger can come out on top of a ballot nearly 10 pages in length, there is certainly a proud tradition of allowing the electorate to consider all of its viable options, no matter how patently absurd some may seem. We are pleased to see that this tradition will live on in Wisconsin Nov. 2.
Anonymous (October 5, 2004 @ 9:58am):
Nader is not a "viable" candidate, so by your own argument, he should not be allowed on the ballot.
I suspect that if an American Saddam was running but had an elector out of district as Nader did, you would not support his being placed on the ballot. Jesse Ventura followed the rules in getting his name on the Minnesota ballot; Ralph Nader flaunted Wisconsin's rules in getting on our ballot. Instead of requiring adherence to the rules, the Republican-dominated court decided along party lines to forget about the law because doing so benefited the incumbent Republican. Had roles been reversed, there is no doubt that a candidate who would likely draw votes away from the Republican candidate would not have been allowed on the ballot.
Anonymous (October 5, 2004 @ 10:12am):
Anonymous: Ross Perot was allowed on the ballot, and he clearly drew votes away from a Republican.
Anonymous (October 5, 2004 @ 11:49am):
Ross Perot also followed the rules for getting his name on the ballot. Had he broken the rules in the same way Nader did, I have no doubt the Republican dominated court would have blocked him from being on the ballot.
Anonymous (October 5, 2004 @ 2:42pm):
You've gotta love the party that "fights for the disenfranchised" trying to get someone removed from the ballot. Seems to me that they're trying to disenfranchise those who would vote for Nader in the upcoming election...
Anonymous (October 5, 2004 @ 10:17pm):
A fair point, that, but if the Nader supporters honestly believe that voting for Nader will do anything but help keep the worst president in US history in office, they're either monumentally stupid or hopelessly naive.
