Two-party system fears Ralph Nader's candidacy
Abookamongstthemany
Posts: 8,209
http://www.mcall.com/news/opinion/anotherview/all-smith3-3.6291767mar03,0,7068766.story
Two-party system fears Ralph Nader's candidacy
By Stephen C. Smith
March 3, 2008
Heee's baaaack! On Feb. 24, Ralph Nader announced he will pursue his third run for president. Already, we are hearing the inane rhetoric, remarks like, ''Your name on the ballot will take votes away from a Democratic nominee,'' or, ''Al Gore would have won in 2000 if you didn't run.'' These statements only show ignorance that the democratic process allows more than two parties to vie for the presidency.
Anyone who has ever heard Mr. Nader speak knows he is trying to make people aware of the corruption that lives inside our government. For decades he had warned us about the power lobbyists and their lawyers have in the decision making process inside government; that this corporate control will continue as long as both parties readily accept millions in contributions; and, the need to shift the power from the few to the many.
These are just a few issues Mr. Nader is bringing to our attention. He is a man working for the rights of the average American. He's dedicated more than 40 years to work as a consumer advocate, citizen group organizer, and environmentalist. His profoundness to question authority has made people admire, disdain, or fear his character.
It is because of his character that he will be getting my vote for the third time as the person I would like to have as our president. Does he have a chance to win? Definitely not! That is mostly due to the overwhelming power and control our two-party system has created in stifling any third party run for the presidency.
In 1988, a private corporation was formed, The Commission on Presidential Debates. It consisted of five Democrats, five Republicans and one Independent. This group took over the reins once held by the non-partisan League of Women Voters. It wanted its own rules and restrictions in place to run the format for presidential debates. It changed the original ruling for a third party candidate to have a 15 percent average instead of a 5 percent average in five national polls to be allowed to enter a debate.
This change came into effect in September of 2000. It was enacted out of fear from the two-party system. Ross Perot's 19 million votes (nearly 10 percent) in the 1992 presidential elections is what brought this un-democratic process to law. Our two-party system fears outside voices and it fears the likes of Ralph Nader.
Consider an October 2000 presidential debate at the University of Massachusetts. Mr. Nader was invited to the debate by the university. With his ticket in hand, he was to watch the debate, not in the debate hall, but in an auditorium on a big screen. Upon his arrival he was greeted outside of the building by a security consultant from the debate commission along with two state troopers. Even with an invite and ticket, he was not allowed inside or he would face arrest. (Nader sued and later got an apology and a monetary settlement from the commission.) The fear of not even allowing a third party candidate to watch a debate at a public university is turning our major two parties into a dictatorial regime.
The Founding Fathers who wrote our Constitution would have had none of this. John Adams once stated, ''There is nothing I dread so much as the division of the Republic into two great parties, each under its leader.''
With that being said, and in light of the corrupt handling of keeping third party voices from reaching the ears of all Americans, we need the likes of Ralph Nader to bring democracy back to the people. We need to hear what's wrong with our political system in order to correct it. We need the ''need for change'' that is not coming from either party running the show. That is why I am voting with my conscious for Mr. Nader. It is not a wasted vote. It is a vote for a change in our electoral process so all candidates can be heard on an equal basis. That my friends, would be democracy in action.
Stephen C. Smith lives in Bethlehem. His e-mail address is scsmith303@verizon.net.
Two-party system fears Ralph Nader's candidacy
By Stephen C. Smith
March 3, 2008
Heee's baaaack! On Feb. 24, Ralph Nader announced he will pursue his third run for president. Already, we are hearing the inane rhetoric, remarks like, ''Your name on the ballot will take votes away from a Democratic nominee,'' or, ''Al Gore would have won in 2000 if you didn't run.'' These statements only show ignorance that the democratic process allows more than two parties to vie for the presidency.
Anyone who has ever heard Mr. Nader speak knows he is trying to make people aware of the corruption that lives inside our government. For decades he had warned us about the power lobbyists and their lawyers have in the decision making process inside government; that this corporate control will continue as long as both parties readily accept millions in contributions; and, the need to shift the power from the few to the many.
These are just a few issues Mr. Nader is bringing to our attention. He is a man working for the rights of the average American. He's dedicated more than 40 years to work as a consumer advocate, citizen group organizer, and environmentalist. His profoundness to question authority has made people admire, disdain, or fear his character.
It is because of his character that he will be getting my vote for the third time as the person I would like to have as our president. Does he have a chance to win? Definitely not! That is mostly due to the overwhelming power and control our two-party system has created in stifling any third party run for the presidency.
In 1988, a private corporation was formed, The Commission on Presidential Debates. It consisted of five Democrats, five Republicans and one Independent. This group took over the reins once held by the non-partisan League of Women Voters. It wanted its own rules and restrictions in place to run the format for presidential debates. It changed the original ruling for a third party candidate to have a 15 percent average instead of a 5 percent average in five national polls to be allowed to enter a debate.
This change came into effect in September of 2000. It was enacted out of fear from the two-party system. Ross Perot's 19 million votes (nearly 10 percent) in the 1992 presidential elections is what brought this un-democratic process to law. Our two-party system fears outside voices and it fears the likes of Ralph Nader.
Consider an October 2000 presidential debate at the University of Massachusetts. Mr. Nader was invited to the debate by the university. With his ticket in hand, he was to watch the debate, not in the debate hall, but in an auditorium on a big screen. Upon his arrival he was greeted outside of the building by a security consultant from the debate commission along with two state troopers. Even with an invite and ticket, he was not allowed inside or he would face arrest. (Nader sued and later got an apology and a monetary settlement from the commission.) The fear of not even allowing a third party candidate to watch a debate at a public university is turning our major two parties into a dictatorial regime.
The Founding Fathers who wrote our Constitution would have had none of this. John Adams once stated, ''There is nothing I dread so much as the division of the Republic into two great parties, each under its leader.''
With that being said, and in light of the corrupt handling of keeping third party voices from reaching the ears of all Americans, we need the likes of Ralph Nader to bring democracy back to the people. We need to hear what's wrong with our political system in order to correct it. We need the ''need for change'' that is not coming from either party running the show. That is why I am voting with my conscious for Mr. Nader. It is not a wasted vote. It is a vote for a change in our electoral process so all candidates can be heard on an equal basis. That my friends, would be democracy in action.
Stephen C. Smith lives in Bethlehem. His e-mail address is scsmith303@verizon.net.
If you want to tell people the truth, make them laugh, otherwise they'll kill you.
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
Post edited by Unknown User on
0
Comments
There is a big problem though, no one is listening. The last time he was in a major news cycle was when he annouced he is running. What has he been doing? Why isnt he calling news conferences everyday pointing out the terrible two party system? Sending out memos to the AP...
As one of his supporters dont you think he should be screaming from the mountain about these issues he cares so much about? Seems like he just chilling out right now.
I've seen him on quite a few news programs saying just that. A quick youtube search should clear things up for you.
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
Im just saying the average voter doesnt get their information from YouTube. He wants to change the system but how is he going to make a dent if he's not being covered?
Umm...the youtube links would show you clips from tv appearances.
Here's some a page with more media links:
http://www.votenader.org/news/
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
You are missing the point... nevermind.
The point where you said people don't get their news from youtube? I simply told you that he has appeared on tv numerous times. What didn't I address?
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
Far from being a vanity trip, a maverick candidacy could upend the presidential race -- again.
Ralph Nader, left, and his running mate, Matt Gonzalez, at George Washington University Thursday. (By Pablo Martinez Monsivais -- Associated Press)
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/02/29/AR2008022902786.html
Discussion PolicyDiscussion Policy CLOSEComments that include profanity or personal attacks or other inappropriate comments or material will be removed from the site. Additionally, entries that are unsigned or contain "signatures" by someone other than the actual author will be removed. Finally, we will take steps to block users who violate any of our posting standards, terms of use or privacy policies or any other policies governing this site. Please review the full rules governing commentaries and discussions. You are fully responsible for the content that you post.
Who's Blogging» Links to this article
By Douglas Schoen
Sunday, March 2, 2008; Page B07
When Ralph Nader announced that he was running for president -- again -- last Sunday, commentators and political strategists were quick to express scorn. The announcement itself, ABC's George Stephanopoulos scoffed that morning, "was the high moment of his campaign." In the days that followed, the Los Angeles Times, the New York Times and The Post all described Nader's decision to run as an ego trip that represented his political "nadir." Political operatives assured the public that Nader was not to be taken seriously. "People are simply not going to make that mistake again," said Chris Lehane, former press secretary to Al Gore. Even Charlie Black, a senior adviser to John McCain's campaign, predicted that Nader would get "less than 1 percent of the vote."
Not so fast.
Nader is undoubtedly a less appealing candidate than he was in 2000, when by winning 97,000 votes in Florida he famously cost Gore the election. But that doesn't mean 2008 is going to be a repeat of 2004, when Nader attracted a mere 0.038 percent of the popular vote. On the contrary, the circumstances for Nader's candidacy could hardly be better. The conditions this November will be more favorable to an independent, third-party candidacy than ever before. As a result, Nader stands a real chance of matching or even exceeding his 2000 performance, when he won 2.74 percent of the popular vote.
In short, Ralph Nader's candidacy -- and how the other candidates react to it -- may well determine who the next president will be.
By now it is no secret that a large segment of the public has soured on "Washington." To denizens of the District, this can seem a childish, naive sentiment. It's not. What Americans have turned against is the broken two-party system. According to a poll taken last year by the firm I founded, Penn, Schoen & Berland, 61 percent of voters say that having a third-party candidate on the ballot in the presidential race would be beneficial to America. A poll by the Luntz Maslansky Group found that 81 percent of the electorate would consider voting for a third-party candidate.
In 2004, Nader faltered because it was apparent that George W. Bush and John Kerry offered stark alternatives. But 2008 is not 2004. George W. Bush isn't on the ballot this year. What the public wants is change. Research done by Rasmussen Reports in September shows that Nader's candidacy is well positioned to capitalize on that desire. In a four-way race, Nader could get 4 percent, considerably more support than he received in 2000. A centrist alternative could do even better, easily attracting 15 to 30 percent of the electorate. Even Ron Paul could receive as much as 8 percent as a libertarian, fourth-party candidate.
But wait, you say. What about Barack Obama? For that matter, doesn't the emergence of John McCain as the likely Republican nominee prove that the system isn't all that unresponsive to the desires of independents? Hasn't their emergence taken the wind out of potential independent candidates' sails?
To some extent, the answer is clearly yes. But even so, Nader -- and possibly other independent candidates -- have the potential to tap sentiments that more mainstream candidates largely ignore. Most important to Nader's prospects is his ability to tap into a strain of ill will toward corporate America that is particularly noticeable when times are bad, as they are now. Both Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton have sought to capitalize on this feeling by sounding populist notes. But Obama and Clinton, compared with Nader, are pikers in this regard.
Nader also supports a single-payer health-care system, dramatic cuts in the military budget and a more open political process. These positions hold considerable appeal for Democrats and independents alike. Nader's presence in the race could well force the Democratic nominee to avoid moving back to the center on these issues during the general election. Even without attracting many voters Nader could thus decisively affect the election results.
Of course, the obstacles to mounting a third-party candidacy are daunting. Getting his name on state ballots will be a challenge. Raising funds and making his message heard will likewise be difficult. Nader's best hope is that the Democratic Party will sabotage itself by descending into a protracted nomination fight. An intraparty squabble that alienates a significant number of Democratic primary voters and caucusgoers might well trigger defections from the party and a turn toward a third-party alternative. Could the Democratic Party take the one step most likely to cost its nominee the presidency in November? Stranger things have happened.
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
Forget Youtube. He's not making the prime time major network's cycles. He should be if he wants anyone to hear his ideas. Thats all I was saying.
Do you think that might have something to do with the fact that our major media outlets are owned by corporations?
Hell, even when he is on, all they can talk about is what a long shot he is instead of discussing his platform and comparing it to the other candidates. Why don't they just let the people decide who is a long shot and put more coverage into his stances instead of telling them it's a wasted vote before he even gets out of the campaign trail? It's complete bullshit!
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
Why wouldn't they be? All I've heard is how Nader's run in 2000 cost Gore the election. And how his run could mean Mccain wins. And did you read how he has meet by state troopers outside the Univ of Mass when he appeared with invitation in hand to a debate? Naaaah, they're not scared.
Consider an October 2000 presidential debate at the University of Massachusetts. Mr. Nader was invited to the debate by the university. With his ticket in hand, he was to watch the debate, not in the debate hall, but in an auditorium on a big screen. Upon his arrival he was greeted outside of the building by a security consultant from the debate commission along with two state troopers. Even with an invite and ticket, he was not allowed inside or he would face arrest. (Nader sued and later got an apology and a monetary settlement from the commission.) The fear of not even allowing a third party candidate to watch a debate at a public university is turning our major two parties into a dictatorial regime.
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
I voted for Nader in 04, and might again this year, but no, the 2 party system isnt the least bit scared of him. Many of the same people that strongly supported him in 00 completely turned their back and voted for the pro war, status quo politician in Kerry in 04. If he cant even keep his supposed followers to support him just 4 years later, what in the world makes you think he is going to convince others at this point? Obama is breaking all kinds of fundraising records and this election cycle has even non political types excited due to Barack and Hillary. Not, because of Nader.
If we dont' start voting thrid party now when will we ever? The time is now.
If they weren't scared then they should allow him into the debates. They aren't afraid of him winning and I never claimed they were. They are afraid, however, of the issues Nader brings up and forces them to address, the second piece I posted in this thread addresses that and why it's so important for nader and other independents to get out there and run to keep the political discourse open and the people aware of other options and possibilites. I'd like to know what your thoughts are on the points brought up in the second article.
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
I would love to see him in the debates as well. But, that doesnt automatically equate to fear. My point was, how scared should they be of a candidate whose own loyal followers just basically abandoned 4 years earlier? You think that is scary? Im sorry, but the people who bailed on Nader and went for Kerry are the people who prevent Nader from being scary. Those are the people who made him irrelevant to the mass media and public at large. Thank those people who didnt have the guts to vote their convictions in 04 for Nader not being "scary" anymore.
And I agree with a lot of the points. He does bring up issues that the other candidates wouldnt want to address. But, Nader isnt the issue, its the people who would support Nader. He would be much scarier if the people who strongly supported him in 2000 had stuck by their convictions in 04, then maybe he would have momentum and have a wider appeal to the public at large. As it is, any momentum he had from the 2000 election was immediately wiped away in 04 because people didnt have the guts to vote for him. We can blame that on the media, on corporations, on whatever. But, just as much fault lies at the feet of those people who didnt stand by their convictions.
Not nearly as big of a concern to me as Obama's pandering and half assed platform. Sorry.
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
I agree with your points but I also agree with the points in the second article.
Nader is undoubtedly a less appealing candidate than he was in 2000, when by winning 97,000 votes in Florida he famously cost Gore the election. But that doesn't mean 2008 is going to be a repeat of 2004, when Nader attracted a mere 0.038 percent of the popular vote. On the contrary, the circumstances for Nader's candidacy could hardly be better. The conditions this November will be more favorable to an independent, third-party candidacy than ever before. As a result, Nader stands a real chance of matching or even exceeding his 2000 performance, when he won 2.74 percent of the popular vote.
By now it is no secret that a large segment of the public has soured on "Washington." To denizens of the District, this can seem a childish, naive sentiment. It's not. What Americans have turned against is the broken two-party system. According to a poll taken last year by the firm I founded, Penn, Schoen & Berland, 61 percent of voters say that having a third-party candidate on the ballot in the presidential race would be beneficial to America. A poll by the Luntz Maslansky Group found that 81 percent of the electorate would consider voting for a third-party candidate.
In short, Ralph Nader's candidacy -- and how the other candidates react to it -- may well determine who the next president will be.
In 2004, Nader faltered because it was apparent that George W. Bush and John Kerry offered stark alternatives. But 2008 is not 2004. George W. Bush isn't on the ballot this year. What the public wants is change. Research done by Rasmussen Reports in September shows that Nader's candidacy is well positioned to capitalize on that desire. In a four-way race, Nader could get 4 percent, considerably more support than he received in 2000. A centrist alternative could do even better, easily attracting 15 to 30 percent of the electorate. Even Ron Paul could receive as much as 8 percent as a libertarian, fourth-party candidate.
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
I think Nader has lost his appeal. I dont think its his fault, but I think thats true. Like I said, I voted for him in 04, and there is a good chance I will this year. But, the way he was looked at and treated after 2000 I think really ruined his appeal. Michael Moore and Bill Maher on their hands and knees begging ya not to run doesnt look favorably for a person. Susan Sarandon basically tried to seperate herself from the fact she campaigned for him in 2000. THese are influential people to a Nader type crowd, and I think they helped turn people off of him. I do think a 3rd party could do well, but I think its going to be from the libertarian angle, not Nader. Say what ya want about Obama or Hillary, but they inspire people, for whatever reason. Thats what an election in this country is about. It isnt about issues, its about rallying people around you. And Obama and HIllary both do that. I cant see a wide range of liberal democrats voting for Ralph over either of those two.
i havent seen blatant pandering from obama...
pandering is railing against wall street for 30 years and investing in it at the same time...
i will address your questions in that other thread... i actually was researching the mining act and all my responses deleted by accident... so it will have to wait
No, that's not pandering. Pandering is giving political favors and support to certain industries based on their contributions and then implementing them into your policies.
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
To me that doesn't say too much for Maher, Moore or Sarandon. And what you say may be true but it doesn't change how sad it is that people prefer to support someone because of campaign speeches and promises over the actual issues they supposedly care about.
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pandering
To which I still say Obama has Nader beat hands down. Any word on what's in Obama or his wife's stock portfolio?
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
they have provided full financial disclosure...
So how squeaky clean is his? And even if his was, I still have many more problems with Obama that I have clearly stated throughout this forum. Not to mention how weak I view his platform.
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
Not nearly as big, nor no concern at all??
www.myspace.com/jensvad
I completely agree with ya on this. Im not much for Obama or Hillary either and would love to see Ralph do well. And I could be wrong, but I dont think he fairs very well this year.
Oh, it's a concern and I've contacted his campaign for an explanation and also even messaged the guy who runs his myspace apge to ask for further info. No reply yet but I'm sure they're swamped after Nader's announcement to run a couple of weeks ago.
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde