Ralph Nader and the 2000 US Election

RedEyedAbyss

Alternative Title: First-Past-The-Post Systems, particularly those with two overwhelmingly dominant parties.

I cannot understand why the idea that Ralph Nader cost Al Gore the election is so prevalent and persistent. For one thing, almost everyone I observed that voted for Nader would, contrary to popular belief, not have voted for Gore if he didn't run, but would have stayed home because then they would have no representative. Over in Canada, the NDP exists because of this, and hell, the most recent election showed it's not just a vote sink party, but a legitimate voice.

Also, it comes off as undemocratic to claim Nader shouldn't have run against the two dominant parties. Which brings me to the alternate title and the other thing I find stupid about Nader scapegoating. It's the system's fault the whole notion of a "spoiler" exists in the first place, yet instead of wanting the system fixed, people criticize one who would challenge it. With proportional representation, the "need" for strategic voting would be mitigated as the winner would be the one with the most votes, not whomever wins the most ridings.

GLORIOUSLeader

Because Ralph Nader is easy to hate. 

Tnu1138

I wouldn't use hate to describe my feelings I love is social views but he comes off as a Well Intentioned Extremist.

glennmagusharvey

Nader basically picked the wrong battle to fight.

Funny thing is I actually have his book, Crashing the Party.  Autographed by him, too.  I got it back in 2002 I think, when I attended Presidential Classroom.

I think that we should switch to a preferential voting system, or a voting points system.

The second one is pretty much just my idea and I haven't read anyone else making a point of it.  In it, everyone gets some number of voting points, that's larger than 1.  Preferably, 10 or 100.  To vote, you divide your voting points between the available candidates.

This way, I can introduce a lot more subtlety to my vote, yet the voting system still preserves the "one person one vote" principle.  For example:
* Chuck Baldwin - 0
* Bob Barr - 5
* John McCain - 20
* Cynthia McKinney - 5
* Ralph Nader - 10
* Barack Obama - 60

I can also undervote if I so choose.  Let's say I really hated this above field.  I could vote like this:
* Chuck Baldwin - 0
* Bob Barr - 0
* John McCain - 1
* Cynthia McKinney - 0
* Ralph Nader - 0
* Barack Obama - 2
* none of the above - 97

If we implement a "none of the above" option (or otherwise track undervoting), we could also gauge how satisfied people generally are with the candidates presented to them.

glennmagusharvey

And oh yeah, Tnu, I agree that he is a well-intentioned extremist.  He's got some crazy ideas, but he's definitely got good reasons behind them.  Just that the policy ideas themselves need more work.

Malkavian

Ralph Nader was one of the biggest reasons Al Gore lost the election, second only to Al Gore.

Tnu1138

federal elections don't really mean anything for voters anyway the real edge is in state and municipality elections.

glennmagusharvey

I'm glad you realize that.  Too many people just remember to vote for president every four years and forget about everything else.

For what it's worth, our town is having elections for town council this november.