Opinion
Don’t let Nader cloud judgment
Looking for a print version?
Simply use your browser’s ‘Print’ command and a printer-friendly document will be generated automatically.
Also by Brenton Martell:
- Olympics awards gold in poverty (February 19, 2008)
- Don't let Nader cloud judgment (February 5, 2008)
- Google sets example for environmental philanthropy (December 7, 2007)
- Campaign coffers ring, distract race (November 9, 2007)
- Closet character opens new doors (October 29, 2007)
Sharing tools:
E-mail this article:
Super Tuesday has arrived, and we’ll soon have a much better idea of whom to expect on our ballots in November. However, the outcome will be negative for many dedicated followers of the race, regardless who will get the nominations. As a result, many citizens — especially John Edwards supporters — may be contemplating avoiding the nominees of either major party.
Whether you love or hate Mr. Edwards, you can’t ignore that his campaign succumbed to nothing more than a simple lack of consideration by mainstream media. I find it hard to believe that there are actually people deluded enough to think that most of the people who have chosen Sen. Barack Obama or Sen. Hillary Clinton over Mr. Edwards actually did so for real, articulate reasons rather than because of blatant media bias.
I do not intend to imply the media did not give any significant airtime to Mr. Edwards. To be fair, his face was seen and his voice heard on all of the major networks on a pretty regular basis. The injustice was that the media never took him seriously and constantly created headlines that portrayed the race as an Obama-Clinton clash, allowing Mr. Edwards only to be seen as an unimportant third wheel, undeserving of any legitimate consideration.
This is an unfortunate situation, to say the least. With Ralph Nader having recently announced an exploratory committee to examine the possibility of a fourth shot at the White House, it is important for Edwards supporters to quickly express support for either Mr. Obama or Ms. Clinton.
Indeed, many supporters of Mr. Edwards and other media-dismissed candidates have expressed disgust regarding the direction in which the race is heading and plan to vote for a third-party candidate or not at all in November.
While these reactions are understandable, such supporters should remember to think with their heads rather than their hearts and consider voting for whichever Democratic candidate wins the nomination, rather than defiantly ignoring reality in favor of casting their votes into the abyss of hopeless “vote-stealing” candidates.
In reaction to the vote-stealing criticisms, Mr. Nader has defended his decision to make a fourth run by saying he has a constitutional right to run and that those who accuse him of vote-stealing from Democrats are essentially labeling third-party candidates “second-class candidates.”
In making such a statement he fails to recognize that though the system we currently use typically does favor a two party election, voting for a third party candidate in November is not going to “send a message” or cause any change. At best, it’ll have no effect, and at worst, it could cause a dramatic change in the outcome of the election — one Mr. Nader supposedly has no intention of causing.
Voting Independent in 2008 will be quite literally equivalent to — here comes the dreaded phrase — wasting your vote, when your vote could have instead contributed toward an actual cause, albeit a bit of a compromise compared to what you might have preferred. Until a widespread IRV system (involving ranking the candidates in order of preference, rather than simply voting for one candidate) is put into place, voting for an obscure third party candidate isn’t going to do anything but sway the election in an unintended direction.
Thankfully, the media will come back into play in favor of avoiding a Nader-spoiler. A fourth consecutive, futile attempt to gain a significant following will largely be ignored by mainstream media, and hopefully to the extent that Mr. Nader’s run will have no impact on the outcome of the election.
Brenton Martell (bmartell@wisc.edu) is a sophomore majoring in English.
22 Comments | Leave a comment
Leave a comment
Herald Blogs
The Beat Goes On
Muckrakers
President’s Visit Marked a Speech to One of the Last Groups Not Critical of Him
Extra Points
Top Classified Ads (view all)
HOUSES FOR Fall 2010. All houses are on W Dayton or N Bassett. 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, or 8 bedrooms. All have parking. madisoncampusrentals.com
Your article here is indicative of the apathetic values that are holding down the progressive movement. IF you want change at any level then your vote will be wasted if you throw it in with corporate Democrats such as Obama and Clinton.
Should Ralph Nader lose the Green Primary in California to McKinney I hope that he will throw his support behind her in an attempt to create a unified progressive movement that will have a profound impact.
Don’t let Ron Paul cloud judgment, either.
See also, Ross Perot.
waah waah, call the wambulance so that Edwards can chase it. A Democrat writing a crappy article about why not to vote for a 3rd party candidate? Wow, how original. Tell me why I MUST vote for Obama or Hillary? Neither represents my interests, and I don’t think either puts forward successful or beneficial policies. I would rather vote for a candidate I know will not win, than for the “popular” candidate I think is disastrous.
Nader’s “spoil” (I still doubt that any of his supporters would have actually voted for Gore or Kerry had he not run) should have forced the party further left to court those voters. Instead, idiots like you push the party apologist line that Bush won because of Nader as the party shifts to the right and lays in bed with corporate powers. Get over it, it’s not Nader’s fault the Dems can’t adequately distinguish themselves from Republicans or run a decent candidate.
Remember: you can’t spoil what’s already rotten.
“I find it hard to believe that there are actually people deluded enough to think that most of the people who have chosen Sen. Barack Obama or Sen. Hillary Clinton over Mr. Edwards actually did so for real, articulate reasons rather than because of blatant media bias.”
Stop being so condescending. My support for someone other than Edwards does not come from delusion. Just because we didn’t want the white man who lost in 2004 doesn’t mean it’s the media’s fault.
America is one of the few country’s left with a two party system. There is not a lot of difference between the executive body of the Republicans and Democrats. America to have a fair political representation needs other political party’s on the ballot. It is a time for change, be it Nader that pushes this message or somebody else.
“that though the system we currently use typically does favor a two party election”
Uhhhh no it is kept that way by the 2 big parties
I’ll vote Ralph PROUDLY more than ever this time
NOTHING will ever change by voting for Democrats
Don’t listen to the Republicrats!! Vote Nader!
“Should Ralph Nader lose the Green Primary in California to McKinney I hope that he will throw his support behind her in an attempt to create a unified progressive movement that will have a profound impact.”
That’s a cute dream.
Why are you so afraid of democracy?
You people must not be paying attention if you say there’s no difference between Republicans and Democrats. Would a Democratic president have gotten us into Iraq? Would a Democratic president have passed a trillion-dollar tax cut for the wealthy that has plunged us into a huge deficit? Would a Democratic president have appointed Roberts and Alito to the bench and swung federal courts heavily to the right? You can’t possibly argue that this wouldn’t be a better country if we had had a President Gore or a President Kerry.
As for Nader, he will go down in history as a great man, no doubt about it. Cleaner air, cleaner water, auto safety, seatbelts, and many other things we take for granted were his doing. I don’t question his right to run for president, even though his campaigns seem increasingly quixotic and self-serving. However, to say that there is no difference between the two parties and that only his way can do any good is just not true. His time would be better spent doing what he does best: advocating for public interest legislation.
OK. I live in WYOMING. Wyoming will go Republican in the ‘08 election REGARDLESS of what I think. How can you possibly argue that I will be “throwing away my vote” if I vote for Nader in November? We have a WINNER-TAKE-ALL system, and my vote will NOT count toward the election of the next president NO MATTER WHO I VOTE FOR! There is almost NO state where your vote actually makes any difference.. So why NOT vote for Nader? At least then you have the clean conscience of voting for someone that you actually support, and for helping to advance a truly progressive cause.
VOTE NADER ‘08!!!!!!!
Anybody who thinks that there is not a difference between Democrats and Republicans should go to the Senate or House website and look up the roll call votes. Almost all of them are divided by party lines. Democrats have at least tried to get us universal health care and the GOP is fundamentally opposed.
DOWN WITH THE 2 PARTY SYSTEM DOWN WITH THE MILLIONS UPON MILLIONS SPENT ON CAMPAIGN PROMOTION WHEN IT COULD BE SPENT ON THE PROGRAMS AND POLICIES THAT ARE BEING CAMPAIGNED FOR SUCH AS: SAVING OUR DISASTEROUS HEALTH CARE SYSTEM, ENDING THE WAR, FEEDING THE STARVING… to name a few
“You people must not be paying attention if you say there’s no difference between Republicans and Democrats. Would a Democratic president have gotten us into Iraq?”
Maybe, maybe not. Remember, Clinton got us into wars too, did nothing in Rwanda, and passed NAFTA. But more importantly, the Democrats did nothing to stop those things you list, and since taking Congress have done nothing to reverse them. That makes them complicit, and almost as responsible as if they had passed them themselves. I’d rather have to similar parties than a spineless, complicit opposition.
I realize you’re probably not old enough to remember (but you should probably do your homework if you’re truly interested in becoming a “journalist” of any sort). The democrats don’t want anyone to voice dissent, and if you don’t believe me, just look at Nader’s two previous campaigns. barred from debating in 2000 despite polling from 8 to 10% in October (and don’t forget about the smear campaign after the Dems weren’t able to beat George W. in the national election), and the absolutely un-American lawsuits filed by the Democrats in an attempt to limit his ballot access. The Democrats have done more to erode true democracy in this country than your feeble mind could potentially comprehend. I applaud anyone who has enough spirit to back the candidate who they can relate with, and can only feel sympathy for those small-minded indivduals like yourself who attempt to marginalize those who don’t buy into the two major party power grab. good luck with another four years of mediocrity as our society circles the bowl.
ryan henige
Not going to get into most of the arguments just going to take up my issue with anon 8:44’s comments. First of all, Edwards’ cases involved serious health damages caused by massive negligence, things like a five year old girl being disemboweled by a pool drain that needed a 75cent fix. I truly hope you never need a lawyer for something like that, but can we please stop pretending that corporate negligence doesn’t exist? Secondly, if you honestly think that Nader voters wouldn’t hav turned the tide you live n fantasy-land. Yes, I wish the democrats were true progressives (which is why I supported Edwards) but as I am not a petulant child I am still going to do my best to keep the Republicans out, work from the inside to create change, we can’t afford another stand that allows another four years like the last seven.
side note: As a massive Edwards supporter who hails from chicago (and so has been particularly tired of obama and clinton fever)I understand your annoyance, but that comment was condescending. Yes, I do think that truly progressive people who did their research would’ve supported John, ut some people might have disagreed with his policies, or simply thought he was unelectabl;, im not justifying im just saying that comment was out of line.
“Would a Democratic president have gotten us into Iraq”
Vietnam?
Did bombing the Christians in the Balkans to help out the Muslims work out better? Was it NEXT Christmas that Clinton meant when promised that the troops would be back from the Balkans?
Oh, but the Supreme Court! Scalia got 98-0 votes in the Senate - I didn’t know there were that many Republicans.
Oh, party unity! No 3rd party! Except Joe Lieberman, Gore’s VP schmucko now stumping for McCain.
Oh, stop the war! Kerry said in Aug 2004 “he’d do it too”. Wow - a piece candidate! No peace banners at the convention!
Oh, the Iraqi people! Clinton (the Bill one) wiped out hundreds of thousands with sanctions (Albright said 500K was worth it), put in place a “replacement strategy”, bombed and strafed in a self-declared “no-fly” zone. And Gore blasted Pappy Bush in 1992 for not going “all the way” into Bahgdad.
Oh, impeach Bush! Oops - Pelosi said “That’s off the table”.
“vote-stealing”
So now running for office is a crime. Rather pathetic statement. Besides it is the ones that get elected that seem to be the criminals most of the time.
If people keep acting like there is no choice there isn’t b/c the two parties can effective ignore those who would choose differently except for the fact they have concluded they are “wasting there vote”.
For those so concerned about the subject the appropriate respond would be to advocate for a “preferential election” system instead of whining about “vote stealing”.
If it comes down to Clinton Vs. McCain, which may well be the case, you might as well toss a coin.
As far as Ralph goes in some ways he has become a rather rather sad figure. However, at least he actually has something to say. Something of substance and relevance. Moreover, he clearly gets the fundamental issues of society and democracy.
I don’t think Ralph Nader is a sad character whatsoever. He stands up for what he believes in a climate that is completely against him. That’s the bravest thing I can possibly imagine.
Also, I truly hope Obama wins in November so this country that believes he is this ‘great progressive hope’ watches in silence as he does nothing of the sort. He does not support universal health care, he is not against campaign finance reform (which even McCain is slightly against), and he is as hawkish as any Republican or Democrat that has preceded him. I mean, what does he even stand for? Nader hit it perfectly when he said “I’ve listened to what Obama said for months now and I can remember only one thing: Change.” Obama and Clinton and the rest of the Democrats (and obviously Republicans) do not care about the people in this country.
Ralph Nader, a true representative, does and has proven himself time and time again. I’m tired of these self-righteous Democrats trying to make people feel bad for voting for a decent human being.
Nader has a new web site up. naderexplore08.org check it out.
Oh yes that nails it! This is exactly what I have been thinking. I have even tried to seek out and listen to some of his speeches. He is eloquent and a strong speaker but I have NO clue whatsoever what the heck he political really believes. Never mind details of what he would do I don’t have a clue on his basic philosophy and political convictions. It is all political fluff. He seems to want to change something about that is all I can get out of it.
The thing I admire about Nader is that he understands and focuses on the fundamental core of issues and understands what matters. Nothing more; nothing less.