Enter the Nader

Ralph Nader is taking another stab at the presidency. Here's a rundown of what Nader claims to be in favor of, and which his website (http://www.votenader.org/) further claims that Clinton and Obama are against:

• Single-payer national health insurance
• Cutting military budget
• Pushing solar power over nuclear
• Reversing US middle east policy
• Ending corporate personhood
• Carbon pollution tax
• Repeal anti-union law, Taft-Hartley Act

Taft-Hartley essentially restricts the ability of workers to engage in certain kinds of strikes to flex their bargaining muscle. Wikipedia has a good summary of it (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taft-Hartley_Act). I didn't have the time to read it all, but I can say there are some elements I disagree with and others which probably make sense.

Many of Nader's positions resonate with me and I think he represents the biggest threat to our unsustainable, profit-over-people culture in the US. Some may try to cast him as a pied piper leading us down a golden road to hell or a self-aggrandizer seeking personal acclaim. I have no idea how to respond to that. Perhaps when I can quit my job and blog professionally I'll have time to write about those notions. For now, I'll just take him at his word and say that he's a guy who means well and likes the limelight at least a little bit. I make the same assumptions for any politician.

The first question that arises for those who align with his thinking is clear:

Does a vote for Nader reduce the chances for a victory by Clinton or Obama in the presidential race?

For me, the answer to the first question is yes. There is no way Nader will win. Most people are too busy to educate themselves fully on Nader's positions so will avoid him or are too scared to risk shaking up the status quo to vote for him - or both. So he will not win.

However, many progressives vote Democrat for lack of a better choice. They long for someone with Nader's outlook. With Nader's entry, the Democrat candidate will lose votes to Nader. Presumedly no Republican would vote for Nader since his stances on the issues are fairly unconventional. So his candidacy has no effect on McCain. This blog breaks it down well with some nice comments from readers:
http://blogs.theroot.com/blogs/downfromthetower/archive/2008/02/25/nader-response.aspx

If he's guaranteed to lose, is it still pointless to cast your vote for Nader? Could it be considered making a statement? Will that make the "powers that be" sit up and take notice? If so, is that more important than actually electing someone who, at least somewhat, resembles your values? Is the system so messed up that there is essentially no difference between a republican and a democrat, necessitating a vote for Nader even if he'll lose?

I hate long blog posts, so I'll just answer breifly.

Liberal thinkers: Voting for Nader might make a statement, but it won't change anything meaningfully. Change takes time. Vote for the Democrat and hope for a slow evolution toward more progressive values. Even if elected, Nader's power to change things would be limited. Our system is set up for gradual change, right or wrong. And yes, there is a difference between McCain and the major Democrat candidates.

Conservative thinkers: Vote McCain, promote Nader in secret, and put up roadblocks to Second Choice Voting (see below).

One thing may hold the answer: Second Choice Voting. Instead of casting a vote for one person, cast a vote for your favorite, then name a second person, in case your top choice doesn't make the cut. Here's where to learn more: http://www.genarts.com/karl/second-choice-voting.html