An Open Letter to Ralph Nader

Nader Mixes Up 2008 Race with New White House Run

Consumer champion Ralph Nader announced Sunday a fresh tilt at the White House, eight years after earning the acid hatred of Democrats for dividing the anti-Republican camp in a razor-thin vote. Denying that he was running as a "spoiler" who could hand the presidency to Republican John McCain, Nader accused both the main parties of shutting out the US public and handing the nation over to corporate interests.

"Dissent is the mother of assent, and in that context I have decided to run for president," Nader, who turns 74 on Wednesday, said on the NBC program "Meet the Press."

Full article here

Dear Mr. Nader

Speaking as someone who respects your work a great deal and who voted for you in 2004, running as a third-party candidate in this year’s presidential elections will only serve to do more harm than good to your reputation as a champion for ordinary people in the U.S.

1. The political system is set up as a winner-take-all contest between the two major parties. Until a better system is in place for people to vote for third parties that negates the spoiler effect, it would be better for you to stay out of the race and concentrate your efforts on fixing that system. Long-term, grassroots efforts for structural electoral reform such as Instant Runoff Voting do exist and have been gaining momentum nationwide. They can use a prominent, high-visibility champion. Lending your name and high profile to that cause for the long-term will only serve as a step in the right direction to reform our political system.

2. If you make an impact in the elections by threatening to siphon votes away from the eventual Democratic nominee and they eventually lose the election, you will earn the undying enmity of Democrats and many Progressive activists. Which is a shame because for all intents and purposes, these are potential political allies and followers who share much of the same goals and beliefs that you hold.

3. If, however, you do not make an impact in the elections at all, you will only serve to diminish your reputation as a consumer activist and champion of political outsiders. Not because your work as an activist has diminished in value but because many people will see and treat you as a political non-entity who does not have the type of mass following that can be of significance in a high-profile election.

There is a lot that is wrong in our two-party system and I would be one of the first to say that it is antiquated and needs serious reform so political insurgents and outsider parties can have a fair shot at participating.

However, a longshot candidacy for President where you do not have a realistic chance of winning against the candidates of either major party will accomplish very little to help the cause of reform. Sure, it might, for the short term, allow your lone voice of dissent to resonate in public forums such as debates and the editorial pages. But what happens after the elections?

What would you have accomplished in running except to become vilified among Democratic circles? A person so vilified would not be able to accomplish much politically. No matter the validity of your ideas and the power of your critique against either major party, people are not going to listen to you.

So Mr. Nader, as someone who respects you a great deal and who is pained by the prospect of seeing an activist like you vilified (or worse yet, ignored) on a mass scale this year, I am urging you to refocus your aim. Instead of running as an insurgent candidate for President, I urge you to lend your name, reputation and efforts to the cause of structural political reform. Running for President for anyone outside the two major parties with the system structured as it currently stands is a waste of time, energy and resources.

I do not see such efforts as accomplishing anything more than garnering publicity for a few months and then afterwards everything will go back to being business as usual. Serious, structural political reform for the long term is a much more worthy goal.

Respectfully,
The Liberal Arts Dude

UPDATE: A blog post about Ralph Nader and Instant Runoff Voting

More on Instant Runoff Voting

Whither Third Party?

Independents are a rapidly growing block of voters--nearly one-third of today's electorate identify themselves as independents--yet of the 535 voting members of Congress, just two--Connecticut's Joe Lieberman and Vermont's Bernie Sanders--are independents. No third party candidate has won the presidency since Abraham Lincoln in 1860--the party had only recently formed following the collapse of the Whigs. No third party candidate has won a single electoral vote since George Wallace in 1968. Ross Perot was a polling leader for parts of the 1992 campaign and though he finished with nearly 19% of the vote--more votes than any independent candidate in US history--he failed to garner a single electoral vote. In recent elections, third party candidates have been reduced to a spoiler's role without any serious chance of victory. So why haven't independent candidates been more successful and what obstacles do they face in 2008? Let's find out.

More than ever before, the 2008 cycle is about money and record amounts of it. Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama have combined to raise $170 million for their campaigns already. Most estimate that the eventual nominees from both major parties will raise and spend in excess of $100 million during this cycle. National parties will also contribute millions more to their election efforts, making this the most expensive election in history. Independent candidates don't have the fundraising machines of established candidates like Hillary Clinton and it would be nearly impossible for them to keep pace financially.

Candidates from outside the two dominant parties also find it increasingly difficult to get on the ballot in states across the country. Independent candidates would be forced to spend valuable time and resources just to appear on the ballots--tasks that the major parties often handle for their nominees. In fact, limiting ballot access has been one of the few things that Republicans and Democrats have been able to work together to achieve.

The Electoral College holds an inherent bias against third party candidates. Its winner-take-all allotment of electoral votes means that a candidate who wins 10%, 15%, or even 20% of the popular vote may come up empty in the Electoral College, as happened to Perot in 1992. Despite a strong presence across the country, Perot did not have enough concentrated votes to carry any individual state.

Voters who may find themselves ideologically in line with independent candidates often concede to voting for the "lesser of two evils" candidate from one of the dominant parties. Why? These voters are willing to compromise their principles, because voting their conscience has been equated with throwing their vote away. Just as bad, most voters instantly disregard third party candidates, because the idea that any candidate could succeed without a "D" or "R" behind their name has been made to seem impossible. The media also largely ignores these candidates, further reinforcing the two-party mindset.

For an independent candidate to have any chance at victory the right circumstances must present themselves. In 1992, an economic recession and an outrage at partisanship in Washington led many to consider Ross Perot. In 1968, divisions within the Democratic Party following the death of Robert Kennedy and the debate about Vietnam, George Wallace was able to carry several Southern states giving Richard Nixon an easy electoral win despite a close popular vote. In 1912, Teddy Roosevelt was able to garner 27% of the vote, thanks largely to his charisma and dissatisfaction with his handpicked successor, William Howard Taft. In 2008, a similar opportunity may present itself. To many, Hillary Clinton represents Washington partisanship, which could turn off many independent voters. Rudy Giuliani's liberal social views could lead many Republicans to defect or not vote and speculation about a third party pro-life candidate has already begun. Voter dissatisfaction is also at higher rates than ever before, manifested in record low approval for President Bush and Congress.

An independent with the ability to bring new voters to the process and appeal to the disaffected voters from each party could stand a legitimate chance in 2008. Whether New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg, a Democrat-turned-Republican-turned-Independent, or any other candidate has the capability to take advantage of the opportunity (if it even presents itself) remains to be seen. One thing is clear, however, independents are a rising force in US politics and both major parties would be wise to appeal to them or they risk becoming an afterthought.

Cross-posted at Political Realm.

Evangelicals Threaten to Support Third Party Candidate

Per the NYTimes.com:

Giuliani Inspires Threat of a Third-Party Run
By DAVID D. KIRKPATRICK
Published: October 1, 2007


WASHINGTON, Sept. 30 — Alarmed at the possibility that the Republican Party might pick Rudolph W. Giuliani as its presidential nominee despite his support for abortion rights, a coalition of influential Christian conservatives is threatening to back a third-party candidate.

The threat emerged from a group that broke away for separate discussions at a meeting Saturday in Salt Lake City of the Council for National Policy, a secretive conservative networking group. Participants said the smaller group included James C. Dobson of Focus on the Family, who is perhaps its most influential member; Tony Perkins of the Family Research Council; Richard A. Viguerie, the direct-mail pioneer; and dozens of other politically oriented conservative Christians.

Almost everyone present at the smaller group’s meeting expressed support for a written resolution stating that “if the Republican Party nominates a pro-abortion candidate we will consider running a third-party candidate,” participants said.

The participants said that the group chose the qualified term “consider” because it had not yet identified an alternative candidate, but that it was largely united in its plans to bolt the party if Mr. Giuliani, the former New York mayor, became the nominee. The participants spoke on condition of anonymity because the Council for National Policy meeting and the smaller meeting were secret, but they said members of the smaller group intended to publicize the resolution.

A revolt of Christian conservative leaders could be a significant setback to the Giuliani campaign because white evangelical Protestants make up a major share of Republican primary voters, including more than a third of voters in Iowa and South Carolina.

But the threat is risky for the leaders of the Christian conservative movement as well. Some of its usual grass-roots supporters might still back a supporter of abortion rights like Mr. Giuliani, either because they dislike the Democratic nominee even more or because they are more concerned with other issues, like the war.

I have to say that I'm confused about this, because it doesn't make any sense to me. Every GOP Candidate has made the pilmgrimages to kiss their behinds. John McCain has sacrificed the independent spirit that made him so appealing to kiss up to them. They've all done the ' please baby baby please' dance with the Evangelicals.

What do they want?

I ask this seriously, because they're acting like none of the frontrunners is returning their phone calls. They're acting like the frontrunners are ignoring them, when nothing could be further from the truth.

And, it also makes it seem, listening to them, that they look at the field, and they are pretending that nobody has their suitable credentials, which is untrue, because Huckabee and Brownback SHOULD be considered bonafides for them. What would a Third Party do for them than choosing either Huckabee or Brownback to support fully couldn't do?

Now, this could be a power play, but my thing is, they've been puckered up to from Day One, so what else is there to squeeze from these candidates?