Ralph Nader and other third parties

Post Reply New Topic

So, I'm hearing you say that it's wrong to ignore the opinions of a minority if that minority contains X number of people. Now, where do you draw that line, and why? Is it OK to ignore a minority of one? George Orwell wrote, "Sanity is not statistical."

Oh, and sorry for de-railing your thread somewhat. It happens to most threads here in PPR.

I will start another topic especially on this as I find it an interesting debate. So let's stick to third party discussion here and I will open the other thread straight away.

Alright, but I think we've mostly exhausted the third party issue. There are a handful running, and Nader's an independent this year, they're all expected to fail miserably, as usual. You did have one other question, though, so I'll try to address that.

These parties are on the fringe, so most people just ignore them. Some dislike them for acting as spoilers (Democrats in 2000 is a good example of this). I think those complaints are pretty much unfounded, since any US Presidential election in recent years is basically a toss-up and more reliant on chance than anything else really. Another view of third parties is that they, though encompassing the outer margin of politics, can bring attention to a specific issue and force the main parties to take a stance on that issue. Child labor, unions, slavery, prohibition, women's suffrage, civil rights, etc were all issues initially pushed by third parties and later adopted by the big parties after enough of the electorate demanded that those issues be addressed. The most recent example of this is probably Perot and a focus on balancing the budget, though, as seen in the Bush administration, that wasn't really a lasting effect. Third parties also pushed toward universal healthcare before the Democrats adopted it; they didn't want the leftish portions of their constituency to start supporting someone else so they incorporated it into their platform. They're also seen as somewhat of a safety valve for fringe loonies who insist on voting their principles. Generally, third parties are either ignored or viewed with contempt. Some respect them for bringing single issues to national prominence, others discount their impact.

Stupid system anyway. If any of them were serious they'd for a coalition with one of the stronger parties to make sure the others lost. There is no guarantee they will get a say in policy, but because Americans tend to have a feel-good mentality if they get something they want, it might just ease their collective mind. Trying to run a small 3rd party in a two-horse race is like a small petrol company going up against Shell or BP; they get they arses kicked, and wiped out.

Besides, 12-18 months for a campaign is verging on the bloody ridiculous. 5-6 weeks from the announcement of the date of the election to the election itself is plenty of time. Considering you have only proportionately more of a percentage of voters who turn up than we do, and we only have 11,000,000 enrolled voters (granted it is compulsory to attend or get your name ticked off). But considering you have possibly 160,000,000 eligile voters, and quite a proportion choose not to vote, thne why does the smegging campaign have to take so long? Counting votes isn't rocket science......