Blog Control to Major Tom.
"there's still lofty dreams, meager desires, still silliness."
SPONSORED BY:
  Your Company Here  
Inquire Within

Don't write Nader off.

People seem infuriated by the fact that Ralph Nader wants to run for the office of the President. And what's even more surprising is that politicians are the most vocal about it. How many news reports have we seen that positions Nader as the spoiler (again). Ralph Nader is simply doing what anyone in America should be free to do, and yet the leaders in our democracy who we've elected to represent us appear to be totally against the democratic process. How can you not at least admit that he has a right to run?

That's not to say I totally agree with everything Nader stands for, but the biggest of all for me, is he stands for us trying to take back our government. It's pretty clear that we lost control years ago. I'm not sure how. Is it big business as Nader suggests? Perhaps. Likely its a combination of things. Special interest groups that don't represent the population anymore. Personal interests, such as the Bush/Bin Laden-Oil dealings. At any rate, Ralph's willingness to talk straight on the issues, is refreshing, and something I think is really needed in Washington.

votenader.org


(2004-07-19 11:14:53.0) Comments [3] // Permalink

Comments:

Under a system of proportional representation, such as the Single Transferable Vote, you argument would make sense. Under the non-proportional US system, it does not. When someone says, "Don't write X off" in the context of an election, the commonsense interpretation is, "Don't rule out the possibility that X might win." In the present-day USA, a Nader win is a delusory notion. Sorry.... Geoff (not a citizen, not a voter, just a student of politics)

Posted by Geoff Arnold on July 19, 2004 at 12:45 PM PDT #

Just like the day Rosa Parks decided to take a white person's seat on a bus. I'm sure everyone thought she was equally crazy, but it started something. Change has to start somewhere. Putting it off only means it'll be that much longer before any affect can be seen.

Posted by watt on July 19, 2004 at 04:22 PM PDT #

I'm with watt on this one. At the very least, when enough people vote for Nader, it sends a message that there is dissatisfaction with the conventional parties. When this is enough to fragement a voting group (as it did 4 years ago), it forces the candidates to address the issue or lose voters.

Posted by retro on July 20, 2004 at 10:17 AM PDT #

Post a Comment:

Comments are closed for this entry.

archives
links