Why we need third party candidates like Nader, Buchanan, etc.

[x-g.o.p.er]

All right, it's my 200th post, so I thought I would try and make it a good one.

Now, for the record, I am an Edwards supporter, but whoever wins the Democratic nomination, I will support. I've been reading a lot of Nader and Kucinich threads in the last few days, and the question I have is this: Why shouldn't Nader run? Or Kucinich? Or Pat Buchanan for that matter?

My point is that there are 300 million people in this country, and I would be willing to lay a bet that two candidates is woefully inadequate sum for full representation of the people. I know I'm probably stating the obvious to most people, but I think it's shameful that both Democratic and Republican political machines try and curb all voices but their own.

Although the Republicans have been brazen in their attempts to curb individual liberties in the last few years, the truth is that both parties do their utmost to try and freeze out third party candidates. And the press is their willing accomplice.

And the sad thing is, we the people have let it get to a point where we are almost to the point where we can't do anything about it.

I would like to see the system change, but how can it be done?

[_Wayne_]

1. No offense, but your 200th post sucked

.

[x-g.o.p.er]

7. Yeah, it did, didn't it? lol

[mandyky]

10. No it didn't

When Nader entered the race, some Dems lost their reasoning power. Nader, and any third candidate have the right to run and add to the debate. Nader is a rough one due to election 2000, but that election was as much a piss poor race run by Gore as it was anything else.

[Jim Sagle]

2. We may need Nader. We just don't need him RIGHT NOW.

[union_maid]

3. You'd have to change the whole structure of our government

At the very least you'd have to have instant run-offs so the end result comes closer to reflecting the will of the people rather than thwarting it. Ideally you'd have a system of proportional representation. We can't even get rid of the outdated electoral college. We're not going to have a system in which third parties further the cause of democracy for a very, very long time.

[BeatleBoot]

4. Later Nader

Look into my kids eyes and tell them its okay that Nader runs.

Bush is a threat to my kids.

Nader is helping Bush with his decision.

Therefore, Nader is a threat to my kids.

Later Nader. Its over.

[x-g.o.p.er]

8. Do you think Nader will be as much of a factor

in 2004 than he was in 2000? I don't. I think he has angered a lot more people than he has energized, IMHO.

[BeatleBoot]

9. He doesn't even realize what he did...

He just kicked everyone fighting for their families in the teeth.

He doesn't get it.

[mandyky]

11. I agree

I voted for him in 2000, no way in 2004 - the stakes are way too high. But I look forward to hearing what he has to say. Hopefully more about impeaching "idiot cowboy".

[library_max]

5. Do be aware that the system you're talking about is over 200 years old.

The U.S. has always had two major parties, never more. And a third party candidate has never come close to winning the presidency. Most have received zero electoral votes. You can blame the press if you want to, but the phenomenon dates back to before most Americans could even read.

It's great for there to be organizations and advocates for every viewpoint on the spectrum. Let a million flowers bloom. But in a presidential election, the reality is that the winner is either going to be the Democrat or the Republican. And in a country of over 200 million people, it's not feasible for there to be enough candidates so that everyone feels personally represented. There's something to be said for the need to make a choice between this and that. We can't function as a democracy unless people are willing to compromise and form coalitions. So what's so wrong with having to compromise on a candidate that represents one or the other of the major parties?

That said, I'd love to see Pat Buchanan make a well-financed and well-publicized bid for the presidency. But that's because I'm a Democrat.

[iamjoy]

6. Electoral College

A third party will never have any strength under our current system.

That is because you do not really vote for president, you vote for an electoral representative who is committed (more or less) to a presidential candidate. The problem is, a candidate only needs a plurality (more than any other candidate, but not necessarily more than 50%) in a state to win ALL of that state's electors.

So, additional candidates only serve to help thwart the will of the people. This is what the Republicans like to whine about happening in 1992 (when Ross Perot had a strong showing) and what happened to a far greater extent in 2000.

If you want the system to change, we have to change the electoral college. Of course, there still could be problems with the majority of the people voting for one of the progressive candidates, but a conservative still gets the most votes.

The best way to really break the two party system would be to change the rules so the candidate needs a majority to win. This is what happens in some state and local races, if no one gets more than half the vote, the top two have a run off. This would be very costly and the Democrats and Republicans see little incentive in changing the current system.

[Old and In the Way]

12. If there was a corresponding 3rd party splinter in the Republican

Party, who would drain 3% or so from their election votes, I'd be OK with that. Nader's run only impacts our party.

Now if Buchanan would run, I'd be happy to contribute to offset the damage that Nader will do.

[Zero Gravitas]

13. Its not a question of curbing debate

Its a question of getting rid of Bush. I agree with much of what Nader says, or would if I were not so furious at him. If he and his supporters want to change the debate in the Democratic party then they should join the party and work to change it. I for one don't care how long Kucinich stays in the race. He is contributing to the debate more than Nader ever will.

Kucinich, unlike Nader and whoever votes for him, will in the end be supporting the Nominee against Bush. He will have contributed to the process and done what he can to convince the base that his ideas are a good way to go.

If its a third party you want, then like minded people need to get out there and build a party from the ground up. If they're not out there all the time trying to do something about it, they have no right, IMO, to whine once every four years about how they don't like the choices produced by the two parties.

Look at what has happened to the GOP. It has been transformed from the inside out by the fundies. We might not like their politics, but they went out and organized at the bottom rung of the ladder and worked their way until they are the major force in that party.

Voting for a non-viable candidate is particularly futile gesture. Its not a "protest" vote that will paid attention to. Political change takes more than just voting once every four years. Nader this time is not representing any party of movement, he is only representing his own smug ego.

[iamjoy]

14. Exactly

to what you said about the fundies and the Republicans. If the Green and Nader supporters are so worried about the direction of the Democratic party, they should join and start getting involved at the local level. They should run for City and County Commission seats (even those technically non-partisan) and state legislatures. Then, if they still have the support, go to Washington or become governor. Doesn't this entitle them to a spot on the DLC? Then, they can make their progressive ideas Democratic party platforms.