Do half the people voting for Nader even care about his policies?

[ButterflyBlood]

I don't think so. I think they're just protesting the two-party system, which while not a good thing isn't too bad for them since they are often centrist. I've heard people say things like "I voted for Nader in 2000 and if he didn't run again I'd vote Libertarian this year", even though the Libertarians and Nader have virtually nothing in common. Hell, these people might be comfortable voting for Roy Moore. I had a friend who said she'd vote for Nader (she said now she'd vote for Kerry), because while she hated pretty much everything about * and the Republicans, she was pro-life. Nader is pro-choice, but that clearly didn't matter (of course she also said she'd vote for Arnold if she could, go figure). But the point is, is voting for Nader really an effective protest? Or is it just proof there are people who will vote for whatever the biggest third party out there is? My money is the DNC would write it off as the latter.

[mot78]

1. TheA lot of people couldn't give a shit about his policies

I know a lot of Nader 2000 voters who had nothing in common with him (RINOs, Libertarians apolitical types) but voted for him because because they were ABBoG (Anybody but Bush* or Gore).

[mdmc]

2. I think that your right, but your not

A third party vote is a protest vote.
In NYS, a Democrat will be able to vote for Kerry on the Working Families Party line, which basically is the pure Democratic party, as opposed to the mainstream, moderate democratic party.

Most people will vote for Nader based on some leftist issue, imo.

[FlemingsGhost]

3. Another Nader thread... how original.

:eyes:

[WitchWay]

4. Policy and Duopoly Protest are Intricately Tied Together

Nader's voters are voting both because they oppose the Two Party system AND because of Nader's policies, both of which are tied together.

Because the corporate domination and corruption of both parties, it is extremely difficult to find any voice who condemns the corporate infiltratoin of our governement. So, this corporate domination of both parties basically CONTROLS the policy in both parties, for the benefit of corporations. This is why it isn't possible to unlink the opposition from the two-party system FROM policy.

Nader is, in fact, running due to the problems that have arisen from the two party system, and the fact that corporatists have basically hijacked BOTH parties. Because of the corporate domination of the two parties (and because the two parties basically enacted all sorts of legislation and made alliances to keep "third parties" or competition out), Nader found that government had grown unresponsive to the Concerns of the public. He found that organizations for the public's interests, like those that he founded had alarmingly less ability to influence policy.

Part of the problem started with the formation of the DLC, and the fact that democrats began to rely on corporate monies. Well, when you take corporate money, you have to serve the corporate interests. This is always at the expense of the public's interest.

Nader, for instance, doesn't take corporate money. If you do not take corporate money, that means that you have no reason to have policy that is corporate-controlled, owned and approved. So, that DOES effect policy. The two party duopoly, their corporate domination is a big problem. It creates two like-minded systems of entrenched and stagnant power, which do not respond well to public needs or demands. For instance, behind the facade of the culture wars, you can seethat the same imperialist policies and free trade agendas that so generously benefits corporations (while harming the public, national security, envrionment) exist in both parties

You end up with an either/or choice, but at its core -- either choice is pro-corporation. Without competition, these institutions sink further and further into corrupt disrepair, driven by the corporate paymasters and monied interests.

Nader appeals to those from all over the political spectrum, and I think that they all have different reasons to support him. I have a couple conservative/independent family members who like the fiscal responsibility and anti-NAFTA, anti-WTO and even the public safety concerns that Nader has expressed/worked in. But, they also dislike the two party system. I think Nader has appeal from all over the political spectrum. There are reform party people, libertarians and green people who like Nader. Nader also has support from many independent voters, and the occasional republican.

[Narf]

6. Kerry should certainly be concerned with Nader...

It may sound cliche but a vote for Nader is, essentially, a vote for Bush because the right won't swing towards Nader nearly as readily as the left will jump ship on Kerry and go Nader.

[WitchWay]

8. Kerry has alot to be concerned about....

And it's a pity so many of his concerns are corporate concerns. But, you are responding to my post with a tired and disengenous platitude.

The left doesn't belong to Kerry and in fact, Kerry has shown some pretty serious disdain for the left. You are talking as if Kerry has some sort of "ownership" over people and their votes. Kerry doesn't own people or there votes. Independents, for instance, are not democrats. Neither are Greens. Nader votes are Nader votes (not kerry votes, not bush votes, NADER votes)

You are expressing the mentality of the two-party mindset. The two party system is not natural, it is abnormal. There is nothing natural about two parties that shut out competition in order to consolidate power which they hand over to corporate control.

The fact that Major Parties feel "entitlement" to votes gets to the very heart of the problems I have presented with the danger of the two-party system. If a party feels it "owns" or "has" voters - well, its not going to do shit for those voters. Those voters are about to get majorly screwed over. Notice how both parties are always "trying to get the middle". Well, that 'middle' is pretty far to the right.

There is a rich third party history in this country. The have effected change by placing pressure on the parties, bringing new ideas/debate to the table, inspiring activism and poltical acitivity, Forming coalitions and groups of like minded thinkers. The republican party started as a loose collection of third parties, for instance.

The problem is, that the Corporate Republicans and Corporate Democrats have an alliance to shut out non-corporate third parties. How? Well, take a look at the Corporate-funded commission on presidential debates. These are not even real debates, and anything that is controversial is never really brought up. In addition, there are tons of ballot access barriers in states to prevent competition against the two party system. Of course, these barriers have been put in place by the democrat and republican party.

Kerry should be concerned with the fact that Kerry is serving corporate, and not the public, interests. The democratic party could start to cut corporate ties, and find better ways of funding than corporate money.

[Narf]

10. Excellent post. Double-excellent even!

Your post makes some very good points. The problem, as you so ably put it, is the ties to corporate money and special interests and not enough emphasis on what the average voter wants.

[Narf]

5. This country has, essentially, a two party-only system...

And that's bad for us. Many people are voting third party (Libertarian comes to mind) because they see the Big Two as simply opposite sides of the same coin.

[WitchWay]

11. Yep - but that coin can change

Well - there are some good things that can happen, fortunately. The history of third parties is very interesting, and productive. It is only recently that they have been so shut out, and I hope this will change.

I think that it will be a very exciting race, and I think that with all the excitement, that more people will get involved in politics and demand changes and responsibility.

Two isn't a very dynamic sort of number (think line). Three is a number that starts to by dynamic and strong (like a triangle). When there are "outs" for voters, there is competition and then politicians need to be repsonsive.

By the way, Nader called his campaign a "trimtab" campaign. It's a buckminster fuller term, and has something to do with how to steer a ship.

[Deja Q]

7. They like what Nader has said. The q is, do they know he's a hypocrite?

Do they know what Nader does in his own companies?

I didn't know until someone at DU pointed it out.

You are right, they ARE protesting the 2 party system. Given what a lot of DUers have complained about over the last ~3 years, I can't blame people who wish to vote Green. Not one bit.

Let's face it - nothing is going to change until after the great crash (when the oil becomes so expensive that nobody can use it...). That's when WE need to band together and fight the fascist and rebuild humanity as a comparatively civilized race.

And, please, make the new system work WITHOUT money. Money only gets people into trouble in too many ways...

[WitchWay]

9. Nah, I've looked into that too.

That little meme bothered me when I first heard it, too, but it doesn't hold water. Nader owns stocks. Part of the reason is that Nader is concerned with developing shareholders and pensioners rights sorts-of-institutions. Think of just happened at Disney, for instance.

Nader donates most all of his money that he makes back into his organizations. In addition, he uses his power as a stockholder to effect as much change as possible in the companies. Nader basically works against his own financial interests concerning his stock options. Nader lives a pretty modest life. The guy doesn't even own a car.

I don't think Nader is a hypocrite, because he's not anti-capitalist or against corporations in totality, or against money. He just believes in stringent regulations, and citizen control and democratic power over these sorts of institutions.

But, the Green Party is a lot more Left than Nader. Nader is better off running as an independent, because he is more of an independent than a Green. Greens are great, though, and I think anyone ought to look into them as an alternative or for mere inspiration.