Ralph Nader and other third parties

Post Reply New Topic

Can someone from the US tell me what the current expectations are regarding the results of the third parties involved in the elections? I know Ralph Nader would get a 5 to 6% according to polls but I am not sure how trustworthy the European press reports are on this subject. Also, none of the reports I have read counts in any other third party than Nader, while some smaller parties clearly outed intentions as well to nominate someone (I believe the Green Party was in doubt but other parties already had a few people listed as possible presidential candidates ?)

Also, how does the vox populi regard those third parties? For example when Nader announced he is running again, insinuations came that he would actually be a negative factor in the Democrats' chances and thus he should not be running if he is serious about political change.... Is it expected that those voting for him (or third parties in general) would be the ones not voting at all if he was not entering the race, or does it indeed look like he would cast away votes from mainly the Democratic candidate?

The Libertarians will probably be the largest third party this year.

Of course, Nader took votes away from Gore and helped Bush win Florida (and thus the nation) in 2000. Just like Perot took votes away from the Republican when Bill Clinton won. That is just how the system is set up - if a candidate doesn't have a real chance at winning, all they can do is "take votes away from someone."

Ah yes, the Libertarians. How many % are they expected to get according to trustworthy polls?

Nader by the way denied that he would be casting votes away from the Democrats and suggested his voters would not have voted if he wasn't in the race? I sort of admire his determination to run for president 5x without anyone giving him a chance and without the media giving him a fair chance to defend his case, but I guess you can question why he is in fact doing it when the odds of success are so tiny.

If we would just adopt a bloody 2-round voting system (like in France), we wouldn't have this problem of "spoilers" as the media so kindly puts it.

But of course the Dems and Repubs don't want such a system, because they know that people would probably vote them out because they suck so much.

How many third party candidates are entering the elections, and what are the expected percentages according to reliable polls?

I knew the Green Party and Libertarians, but I guess there will be more third parties entering the elections?

So what drives these parties and people to still enter the race, despite the bias against them (as many people will only consider Democrat/Republican) and despite the media not paying any attention to the third parties? What drives people like Nader or parties like the Constitution Party and Libertarians to still go for it every time despite knowing their chances are zero from the start?

Actually I must say Nader does have some good ideas. But I guess 5% would be a huge success and probably not realistic.

I suppose they run partly out of spite, partly because they really want to "fight the good fight" and don't care if they're hopelessly outnumbered and fighting a seemingly hopelessly lost battle. There is something noble in continuing on against impossible odds and never backing down. Also, I'll be voting third party if at all, so maybe I can offer some insight here. I can't bring myself to vote for someone I don't support, so instead I make a show of support for someone I DO like, even if I know they won't win. I voted for Ron Paul in the primaries, knowing that he would not win, but also wanting to register my discontent with the options we were given. Some of the motivation to keep running campaigns that will lose may be just so that you can know you tried to do the right thing, even if you had no chance of success.

People involved in third parties tend to take deontological views and eschew consequentialist thinking; they (or "we," since I'm one of these people) regard any political action as an ethical decision, and one that is right or wrong in and of itself, without any relation to more pragmatic concerns such as its outcome. This is how far-lefties could support Nader without feeling guilty that they contributed to a Bush victory. There are many arguments to be made for voting your conscience, and never giving in to supporting the lesser of two evils. You shouldn't be forced to make such a choice in your leaders, and refusing to do so is the most principled course of action.

Nader has some good ideas? Hm. I disagree. He hasn't published his issues stances this year (at least not to my knowledge) but last time I saw his positions in a previous election they were pretty dumb, and highly contradictory. He wanted to eliminate all taxes, and yet have the government pay for everything... That doesn't exactly work.

I agree with your view on voting for the party that ideologically suits you best rather than voting for the least wrong option of those who have a chance to win. Politics is about standing up for what you believe in, and then no compromises should be made, you should vote for the candidate that you honestly support regardless of the predicted outcome. In my native country I too voted for a party with virtually no chance to win, but in the end you just need to vote for whoever your ideology is with ; if people never even consider voting third party then you rule out any change of the establishment and political landscape.

Really, I think our fundamental system of government needs a real close look. Elections aren't determined by any nonsense we were taught in high school social studies class about the will of the people, they're determined by a combination of who has better advertising and several chance occurrences that mean nothing in terms of what people want (such as technicalities about election laws or maybe how much counting error there may have been). And even then, 51% of the vote=100% of the power. It makes no sense whatsoever. The percentage of the electorate that is actually informed as to the issues they're voting on is negligible (the New Hampshire Republicans who revived McCain's dying presidential run thought he was anti-war!) and so good decisions really can't be made. Our entire system is a mess, and it needs serious reform (or replacement) before there's much point in debating who should run it.

I know. The 51% makes you think really. I mean, democracy and following the will of the majority is fine in tiny communities of a few thousands people. In countries with a population more than 1000000 it doesn't work IMO: if 90% vote for party A, the 10% who you ignore are still 100000 people whose wishes are being ignored. That just is unfair.

IMO democracy is not the right system. I am still wondering about alternatives, but I did lost my faith in democracy. Communism is not the answer neither, but democracy IMO has failed too often to still have faith in it myself. But that is a different subject alltogether and maybe a great idea for a separate topic.

How about Futurachy as an alternative (http://hanson.gmu.edu/futarchy.pdf) then? I would agree that super majorities would be a lot better than that stupid 51% rule we currently have, and 90% would be more than acceptable for that. You can't have unanimity in such large countries, cracked, so some people will have to get their optimal choices ignored. It is just a matter of what % should be ignored (which, our case is sadly 49%).

Voting for these third parties isn't entirely throwing your vote away either or giving the election to the other party. By creating the fear that you will vote 3rd party, the major party you are more aligned with will be more inclined to make concessions towards your viewpoint so you won't vote for third party. It might not be much, but it still acts as a nice little balancer.

Agreed with your last statement.

In terms of your first paragraph, I believe even ignoring 10% is not a good thing if that 10% is still a 1000000 people or so. In this case you do have to look for compromises to somehow fulfill the needs of those people as well. But maybe, to keep discussions handy to overview, we should open a seperate topic about "democracy versus other systems".