Ralph Nader officially announced his bid for the 2008 U.S. presidential election today. After the controversial impact he made in the 2000 race in which some say he caused Al Gore to lose both Florida and the national election to George Bush, Democrats are shaking their heads and muttering, "C'mon Nader - don't do it again!" While Republicans are snickering in the corner like hysterical school kids hoping for the "spoiler" to trip up the favorites one more time.
After today's announcement, it begs the question - Should the U.S. voters embrace a Multi-Party election system?
First, let's take a look back to 2000.
Did Nader really cost Gore and the Democrats the election in 2000? It depends on how you analyze and interpret the voting numbers. On the surface, it looks like Nader actually did "spoil" it for Gore; however, it STRUCK me today after watching the interview with Nader on Meet The Press that it may not be so simple:
Nader probably represents a small percentage of actual voters in the U.S., but the presence of a viable third party/independent candidate does add value to the system by, at a minimum, bringing out more people to vote. As to the 2000 election, it could just as easily be argued that Nader's presence inspired hundreds of thousands of people to vote, rather than sit at home and apathetically watch CNN or MSNBC election coverage.
Nader contends that by inspiring these otherwise disenfranchised voters to go to the polls that Gore actually got more votes than he ever could have done on his own. By comparison, it was estimated that voters who identified with Nader yet voted otherwise did so in a 2-to-1 ratio in favor of Gore.
On a different note, multiple party elections are one way that many countries around the world ensure that all issues are vigorously debated during an election cycle. I can't help but feel like a strong two party system in the U.S. is inherently against the best interests of the people as a whole. Oftentimes, it allows for many issues to be avoided in favor of an overemphasis on "hot" topics only.
In looking back, the fact that Gore couldn't beat Bush in 2000 by a larger margin of actual votes is something that the Democratic Party as a whole needs to take responsibility for, rather than trying to place blame on a third party candidate.
At the present time, the 2008 presidential election seems to be about three things: war, the economy and entitlement spending. Nader brings several more important issues to the table, like alternative means of taxation, restructuring defense spending, redefining international relationships and environmental issues. How can this be viewed as a bad thing?
Nader is also a very intelligent man, and intelligent debaters force all candidates to be at their best. Whether it is dissent or simply a different point of view, debate over important issues is a healthy thing, and when it comes to the presidential election, the broader the debate the better.
As far as the 2008 election, a multi-party system should not have any impact on the actual outcome of the race. It is my feeling that, if Barack Obama is nominated for the Democratic Party, he will win by a large margin.
As Nader correctly pointed out in the interview today, the majority of voters will not elect a president who is willing to put the country into a perpetual state of war as McCain has alluded. And, history has shown that third party candidates or independents are rarely able to swing enough votes to win a state let alone the entire nation.
So, why not interject another viable competitor to broaden the scope of issues that are seriously discussed? It's a 'no-lose' situation for voters.
Looking to the future, the question then becomes whether or not a "Third Party" or independent candidate could ever win a national election in the U.S.? Probably not any time soon, but the value added by having more than two candidates in the race makes embracing the concept beneficial to everyone.
I continue my support for Barack Obama in the 2008 presidential race, but I'm actually glad that Ralph Nader decided to join in and expand the issues that will be debated.
Related Posts:
The Four Must-Have Personal Qualities of a President
Campaign Spending is Out of Control
Obama Should Win the Democratic Nomination
Sunday, February 24, 2008
Should U.S. Voters Embrace a Multi-Party Election System?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
9 comments:
This story is in critical need of disambiguation. Nader helped Gore get votes? Multiple party candidates stir more debate on the issues? This is pure Naderism!
The truth: Nader took enough votes away from Gore to make it possible for the Republicans to rig the election by having the U.S. Supreme Court act in behalf of the Republican Party!
The truth: More political parties, more confusion, more bickering, more stalemate, more coalitions, less cohesion, less agreement, less democracy!
Get real!
William,
Thanks for the charged comment! It's good to see someone with conviction posting, even if I don't agree. From the sounds of things, we will probably both be voting for a Democrat, but we may not share every view in common.
The funny thing about "truth" is that it has to be verifiable, and I don't think anyone - Gore, Nader, the Democratic Party or the Supreme Court - can tell me with 100% certainty that Nader "took enough votes away from Gore to make it possible for the Republicans to rig the [2000] election."
I respect your opinion on the matter, but I also do not subscribe to the notion that more candidates or more parties equals more confusion for voters. There is a way to make it work, and many democracies around the world do make it work.
Fundamentally, I believe that people are intelligent and capable of discerning facts for themselves, and the ability to choose is enhanced by increasing the number of choices. This may not be true for children, but adults should be given a little more respect.
As in the working world, people perform to the level of expectation you set for them. If you think voters are stupid and limit their choices, they won't disappoint; however, if you let them know that their vote and opinion really does matter, then I believe that they will get more involved and informed.
Thanks again for the comment, and I hope you will continue the dialogue.
Jeremy,
Much of what you say is true, but I disagree with this statement you made: "the ability to choose is enhanced by increasing the number of choices."
People may vote "the man," but without the support of a minumum of one-half of the voters that man is unable to lead -- unless he's a dictator. If you have a dozen political parties then the winner will end up with only a plurality, not a majority. Without a majority of Americans behind him, the likely result is chaos. Pluralities generally require coalitions to govern, and coalitions make governing unworkable, if not disastrous.
Here's the URL for a column I wrote a while back that discusses this issue in more detail:
http://hubpages.com/_wwft/hub/The-Center-Alone-Cant-Fill-the-Void
It would be a dull world if everyone agreed on every issue.
I agree that a dozen parties would be pointless and counterproductive.
I read your post, which was very well articulated. In fact, I remember when this event was happening, as I was editor of the Freedom of Information journal Access at UCONN in the mid-90s.
Many of the people you mentioned, including the governor of CT, were centrists, and I actually respected the intent of what they were trying to accomplish.
I still feel that a multi-party system is beneficial, but I will concede to you that it could go too far as well.
A two-party system reduces elections to 2 or 3 major issues, which in my opinion is terrible for the voters. This type of scenario enables fear to drive election results too often, as was seen in the 2004 race when everything boiled down to the need for consistency due to multiple wars going on.
I don't want to jump all over the place here, but I think that the thing that would weed out dozens of candidates to confuse voters would be campaign finance reform. Take a look at the 5 points I make on the following post: http://struckintraffic.blogspot.com/2008/02/campaign-spending-is-out-of-control.html
In a reformed system, only viable candidates would still be able to be competitive in the race; however, it would expand it to more than two.
I understand your argument about the value of a clear mandate to lead, but I don't think that it's a requirement. If so, then many locally elected executives (mayors, burgesses, council presidents) would not be able to lead, and there's no reason why that theory cannot be scaled up to a national level. Also, history does not bear out the necessity of a clear mandate from the people to enable a president to be successful in his/her role.
Again, I appreciate your perspective and thoughts on this matter, and I believe that this kind of dialogue is a very good thing for engaged citizens to consider.
People really need to check out the Ziggy Saunders "Write In Protest Vote" against the 2 party system.
Finally a canidate who tells it like it is no BS. He vows to give the Middle Finger to the Two Party System and to Lead a Revloution at the Voting Booths this November.
Check out these two YouTube videos of Ziggy
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XctuI5iCfCg
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XoYQXY6_DQ8
and his page at
www.MySpace.com/ziggysaunders2008
I am of the mind that parties should be based on an ideology and with common sense they find solutions based on that. If thats the case than is their room for more than one ideology? I know thats not how it works although it should, we like to just argue of over issues. The petty bickering with two parties is getting us no were. Issues like Social Security and Medicare are still out there with no solution in sight. Another party could support one of the others or have a solution one of the other could support. Then something would get done.
Some small compromises are necessary. Although what little compromise that has happened has led to half and/or weak measures that do nothing. Fight for what you believe and if you lose all the better. They will be proven right or wrong and if it doesn't work their is plenty of room to try something else.Compromise for the sake of compromise is weak!
Thanks for the comment Mloger! I agree with your frustration about the current level of compromise and corresponding results.
Anonymous poster - Ziggy Saunders might be able to win if Ziggy Stardust is his running mate; however, he may be able to get a job protecting celebrities like Britney Spears from the paparazzi.
If Nader were a viable contender then that would be fine. In fact all he can be is a protest candidate. I see this election as a struggle over the soul of America. Are we going to be a divided nation where the rich are served and the poor suffer or a united nation where more Americans are securely members of the middle class? Are we going to be a warlike nation, preemptively invading other countries, or one that respects international law?
Nader can say, as he did in 2000, that there is no real difference between Republicans and Democrats, but who will believe him? Al Gore no different from George Bush? Barack Obama no different than John McCain?
Unfortunately, I had a telephone conversation with an otherwise intelligent person, my boss, just this morning, who insists he is going to vote for Nader because "They're all crooked." There are people, plenty of them, who will drink that kool aid again. And yes, in my opinion, Nader did spoil the 2000 election by throwing Florida into chaos, giving the eventual victory to Bush by supreme judicial fiat.
Thanks for joining in Clark!
I agree with all of the concepts that you put forward. This is a critical election, and it will determine the future of our country in many ways.
We'll have to agree to disagree about Nader though. Again, I'm not voting for him, but I do think his entering the race adds value.
Al Gore would have been 1000 times better for the U.S. as President, but the Democratic Party needs to learn from the past and not make the same mistakes moving forward. What I mean is that it's not enough to compare a nominee to "the other guy" - the Party needs to nominate candidates that are better leaders who inspire and galvanize voters.
In my opinion, they will have done that if Barack Obama is the nominee. Then, also in my opinion, competition will bring out the best in a leader. Why does the competition only have to be "a" or "b" though?
I said in a reply to someone on Digg, it's like going to a restaurant and only having the choice of chicken or fish. What about steak or vegetarian options?
Fundamentally, I think choices are good, especially in politics. People are smart, and I believe that they will make smart voting decisions in the end. I hope that your boss will come around.
Post a Comment