American graffiti: The problem with third-party candidates
The U.S. seems to simultaneously fear and make fun of Ralph Nader and his ilk.
Recently I noticed a stop sign with "Ralph" inserted in huge spray-painted letters after the word "Stop." I assumed the sentiment was meant to be anti-Ralph Nader. In 2008 Nader has become such a joke, it is hard to fathom anyone losing sleep over his presidential campaign.
But I support third-party participation in government. It would open up the debate and make the political process more real and less staged. Nader's reoccurring candidacy is to make a point. He may be a broken record, but he's repeating an important mantra: Americans should not be backed into a corner every time, voting for the lesser of two evils. He is shining a light on that fact with his tradition of running as a third-party candidate. It is symbolic.
This summer, Nader reportedly said that Democrats who plan to vote for Obama as the lesser of two evils are living under "political slavery." A woman in the audience asked Nader what he thought of the saying, "A vote for Nader is a vote for McCain." Obviously Nader did not agree; otherwise, he would not be running. He asked her if she thought he was a "second class citizen" and then called her a "political bigot."
The sign "Stop Ralph" and the saying "A vote for Nader is a vote for McCain" are both knee-jerk reactions. Political passivity and low voter turnout is the norm in America. In this respect, attacks on third-party candidates unlikely to poll any serious amount of the vote are baffling. In this country, third parties are simultaneously feared and laughed at.
Another guerrilla sign, this one stenciled on a pillar heading to I-5 away from KeyArena, says in big black letters, "Vote your hopes, not our fears, vote for a 3rd party." This fear of third parties and the resulting monopoly of the two main parties have narrowed our sense of viable candidacies. Fear of third-party candidacies has caused people to place short-term interests in one candidate ahead of belief in debate and the democratic process.
The impact of outsider candidates early in the election suggested how things might look without the two-party monopoly. This year would have been dynamic if Ron Paul had the support and resources of a real alternative party, and likewise for Dennis Kucinich.
Peer pressure by middle-ground politicians and big media pundits has made candidates like Kucinich and Paul clowns instead of what they are: Serious patriots voicing viable policy choices. Romney, Giuliani, Thompson, and McCain all snickered whenever Paul would list reasons we are in Iraq and why we should not be there. Kucinich was prodded with a gotcha question in one debate that uncovered his belief in the possibility of UFOs. From that moment on, he was branded a loon. These tactics denigrated the candidates and created a narrative bent on ensuring only the most status quo of candidates were left standing: Republican and Republican Light.
For now our politics resembles an editorial cartoon that has stuck with me for years: Two campaign posters are side by side. In one, a man cuts off a single arm; in the other, the man cuts both arms off. Two bad choices: Pick whichever one hurts less, but it will hurt no matter what.
In 2000, Gore and Bush seemed so similar, it was hard to see any difference. As I watched one of their debates, a guy walked up to me and said, "Why are you watching these two cheese dicks?" I was embarrassed as I thought about the question. An economics professor once told me, "Kids vote for Democrats, and adults vote for Republicans." I wonder who he would say votes outside of the two-party box? Minnesotans voted for Governor Jesse Ventura.
Obama has been influenced by independent thinkers. He has at least given lip service to the anti-war message Kucinich pushed, and that is a hell of a lot more than any front runner has done in a long time.
The "Ralph" stop sign might have nothing to do with Nader. Maybe it's a non-political statement. Ralph may simply be the name of a wannabe tagger, or a random expression. But the demand that he, or any other third-party candidate, should cease efforts to participate in our democracy is a bad sign.
Comments:
Posted Tue, Sep 30, 6:42 a.m. inappropriate
The Outcome: Bad or Worst: A single vote is meaningless in statistical terms. Democracy doesn't scale well.
Posted Tue, Sep 30, 8:50 a.m. inappropriate
By "real" do you mean a third party with a shot, however slim, like the Liberal Democrats in Great Britain? Of course no such animal exists in the United States, but Ron Paul did have the support of our Libertarian Party, which ended up going with Bob Barr when Paul refused to ditch the Republicans.
To be fair, Paul probably wouldn't have gotten anywhere near the publicity he got this year had he run as a Libertarian for the second time (he was their nominee in 1988). Of course, now that he's endorsed the Constitution Party candidate, Chuck Baldwin, who knows what to make of him.
Posted Tue, Sep 30, 10:59 a.m. inappropriate
It's time: It's well past time we switched to a Preferential voting system in the US. This will allow people to vote who they want to vote for without being afraid of "throwing away" their votes. Third parties will start getting real percentages of votes, and may some day move into power if we aren't happy with the two ruling parties.
Posted Tue, Sep 30, 11:02 a.m. inappropriate
RE: It's time: Sorry, wrong terminology. Not just any preferential voting system, specifically Instant runoff voting.
Posted Tue, Sep 30, 11:30 a.m. inappropriate
RE: It's time: It is my understanding the King County Charter Review Commission is currently discussing this, though I don't think it's a high priority for them. Perhaps they are waiting to see how things pan out in Pierce County this November. IRVWA (soon to be RCVWA) is the statewide advocate for instant-runoff voting, which I can only ever see happening over the strong objections of the two major parties.
Posted Tue, Sep 30, noon inappropriate
RE: It's time: // over the strong objections of the two major parties//
It's true, changing voting systems more or less requires the major parties to give up power intentionally. I suppose our only hope is that our representatives place democracy over their party loyalty. I'll try not to hold my breath.
Posted Tue, Sep 30, 5:45 p.m. inappropriate
Winner take all == two party system: The reason Ralph should be stopped is that his strategy only undermines his cause. First of all, his example makes 3rd parties look unsuitable for any position of power in our government. More importantly though, you'll never have a sustained and credible 3rd party (not to mention 4th, 5th, and 6th) in the US unless you change our system from winner take all to proportional representation.
With proportional representation, votes for 3rd party candidates actually put 3rd party candidates in legislative seats. A rational person who doesn't wish to throw away his vote can thus vote for a 3rd party candidate and know that will matter. With winner take all, a third party vote amounts to forfeiting whatever influence you might have had on the outcome. Worse, you've done nothing to stop the greater of two evils from rising to power.
If Ralph truly cared about opening our system to other parties, he would drop out of the race and pursue proportional representation. His refusal to engage reality, however, suggests to me that what Ralph Nader really cares about is Ralph Nader.
Posted Wed, Oct 1, 1:03 a.m. inappropriate
american journalism: "Peer pressure by middle-ground politicians and big media pundits has made candidates like Kucinich and Paul clowns instead of what they are: Serious patriots voicing viable policy choices."
And ill-researched opinion-based articles like your piece makes Nader look like a "2008 joke" instead of what he is: a Serious patriot voicing viable policy choices.
Have you researched Nader's policies? Have you researched his history and accomplishments? You state that his "candidacy is to make a point." What evidence is this statement based on? You state it as if it were fact and not your personal opinion.
His candidacy is to push through a very specific set of public policy reforms that the majority of Americans want. He has a very detailed and specific plan for the first 100 days of office. The Republicans and Democrats are not even remotely as organized and focused in this regard. They have stated where they stand on issues, but the very significant difference, which you do not address, is Ralph Nader not only knows where he stands, but has a focused plan of action and time frame for accomplishing those goals.
I can name 4 things I used today off the top of my head that are in place because Ralph Nader saw a vacancy, drafted legislation, and lobbied Congress to present and pass it. That is more positive change for my personal benefit than all of the candidates in the race combined, which is why I am simply baffled by the notion that he is in the race for himself and simply to make a point. Your opinion is not based in reality.
This notion that Ralph Nader is crazy or will say crazy things or is just running to be obnoxious is manufactured and baseless. What has he said or done that is crazy? I would love for you to share this insight with me. I would love for you to tell me anything he has said that seems crazy and egocentric. Especially in comparison to the crazy things being said in Washington DC right now. To me, asking the representatives and public to back a 700 billion bailout bill to reward failure with an extension to fail some more with public funds is outrageous. It is the craziest, most egotistical thing I have heard in a long, long time. Yet coming from Obama and McCain, who both vocally supported this bill, this message is political speak and acceptable. Nader calls these people crooks of funds and democracy and he is marginalized as a joke.
I am so glad you bring up Jesse Ventura. What a great case in point. This man was polling so low just a month before the election (10%)and he had the opportunity to participate in the televised debates. He ended up winning the race. Did you happen to hear him at the Super Rally to Open the Debates outside of the RNC? No? I'm not too surprised. Mainstream Media doesn't cover Nader or Nader rallies because he's a populist and is pushing for policies that would benefit American citizens and penalize abuse of power at the cost of the corrupt. Instead, main stream media recruits people like you to draft articles that refer to his campaign as nothing to lose sleep over. Please check out Ventura's Speech at Nader's rally speaking on how 3rd parties can win although the odds are low and the obstacles are high. I hope that you will, in the future, give Ralph Nader the respect that you give Kucinich and Ron Paul, and curtail your baseless knee-jerk "stop ralph" attitude. And I hope that you will post some reasons for your view that Nader deserves to be marginalized.
kelly
Posted Thu, Oct 2, 10:34 a.m. inappropriate
RE: Winner take all == two party system: Thanks Sean,
It's always nice to see someone well informed on the Crosscut comment pages. Because of our winner take all system, there is a natural tendency toward two parties that act as coalitions of smaller groups. In other countries with parliamentary systems, the coalition governments are formed after the election by narrower interest parties (e.g. Green and Labor parties forming a government with over 50% of the delegates). In the United States, the coalition must be formed prior to the election in the big tent of one party or the other.
IRV would help democracy in that it would prohibit the ticket-splitting effect of Ralph Nader and his ilk. Some Green Party funding in the country comes from Republican donors who realize the strategic advantage of having a third party strip off idealists from the Democratic Coalition.
In a normal election Democrats should donate to (and hype up) the Libertarian candidate and hope to squeeze a couple of votes from the Republicans, but given the profligate spending and waste by the Republicans over the last few years, I don't expect Libertarians to be voting for McCain anyway.
Posted Sun, Oct 5, 5:14 p.m. inappropriate
RE: american journalism: I definitely was not drafted to write a bash piece on Nader. The third sentence calling Nader a joke reflected the nation's attitude toward his campaign. Sean's comment post was a perfect example of what that sentence touched on.
I think some of the words you used like "crazy" and "stop ralph attitude" have more to do with the fact that: your mad Nader is not getting a shot to participate in debates and on the ballot. I feel that way too.
Some of the other posts point out the problem with 3rd parties has more to do with our winner take all system. That is the real problem. The reason I mentioned Kucinich and Paul was because they got to stand on a stage and spar a bit with the mainstream people in the party.
Posted Sun, Oct 5, 5:19 p.m. inappropriate
RE: on Paul (L? R? C?): That is exactly what I meant. A third party that would be on the ballot and invited to the debates.