Why I Voted for Nader
|
By Andrew Fraley So Barack Obama won a landslide victory in one of the most energized elections in recent history. Everything will soon be right with America, and indeed, if CNN's coverage of the "Return of the Jedi"-style celebrations around the globe is any indication, all will be right with the whole world. There is a narrative in America right now that the Republicans alone are responsible for all the problems in America, and the Democrats are doing all in their power to fight this injustice. This is being perpetuated through the Democrats themselves, as well as through the major media outlets. It is also being echoed through most colleges, Stony Brook being no exception. On Election night, I passed by the Journalism Department's Newsroom of the Future and witnessed the orgy-like response to Obama's early lead in the polls. There was cheering all around whenever CNN projected another blue state, and all the journalism students basked in this frenzied atmosphere. At the College Democrat-hosted election party, the fervent Democrats roared at every gained Democrat Congressional seat, without even knowing who the victor was, or what his policies were. This sort of mindless devotion to the Republican party is often ridiculed as fanaticism, but does it make it okay to do it for the Democrats because they're better? And has anyone considered that maybe Obama isn't so great? Obama has reversed his stance on many of his progressive issues during his campaign, and, in some cases, flat-out lied. He's backed off his populist rhetoric regarding NAFTA; he's promised to vote against FISA, only to vote for it and later vote against any debate on it; and he's set a precedent for one of the highest funded campaigns in history with numerous contributions from corporations and lobbyists, despite his claims to run on public financing and ban lobbyist contributions. Furthermore, he boasts of progressive policies which are just more of the same. He promises to expand the military and occupation of Afghanistan, but won't commit to a troop withdrawal from Iraq. He retains essentially the same stance as the Republicans on Iran and the Israel-Palestine situation. He's a supporter of the death penalty. Do any of his supporters even know that? And I'm not even going to get into Joe Biden, "Senator from Mastercard." So I voted for Ralph Nader. I voted for the candidate, not the party. Nader's policies were the ones I most agreed with, so I cast my ballot for him. And he lost, obviously. He received less than 1% of the overall vote. To those who ask me why I would vote for a candidate who has no chance of winning, I ask them to consider their logical fallacy. Ralph Nader cannot win because no one votes for him, and no one should vote for him because he cannot win. If voters picked a candidate based on their actual policy, I would say Nader has an excellent chance of winning. In fact, in an experiment held by the Berkley Carroll School, students there chose Nader's policy in a blind election with a 46% majority. Most functioning democracies support multiple party systems, why is it so unfathomable for America to have the same? As it stands, America cannot see any real change with the current system set up this way. Both the Democrats and Republicans are doing the very least for the country and the American people to ensure that they stay in power at least half the time. America cannot see any real change until they demand more from their candidates. When I confront Obama supporters about Obama's, and the Democrats' numerous faults, they usually reply with: "Yeah, but he'll be better than Bush." Well, probably. History will view George Bush as one of America's worst presidents. Is being slightly better than the worst something to celebrate? Is it even something to be tolerated? It is our duty as American citizens to hold our candidates to higher standards. That is why I voted for Ralph Nader. If the Democrats want my vote, they'll have to earn it. As I eagerly await the Nader '12 campaign, I'm going to join fellow activists in lobbying my congressional leaders to help bring about the changes that we were promised, that we deserve. I encourage everyone else to join me. More information can be found at november5.org. Andrew Fraley is a senior at Stony Brook and the Arts and Entertainment editor of the Stony Brook Press. |
Hey Andrew. I agree that Ralph Nader's a pretty cool guy who gets a lot of largely undeserved heat from the Democrats. That said, I voted for Barack Obama. I didn't vote in the sort of orgiastic state of rapture people tend to attribute to Obamaphiles, but I threw down for Barack nonetheless.
I did so because I believed that was the way my vote would be most effective. More on that later. My views on voting have changed a bit in the past few years. In 2006, I voted for Howie Hawkins, the Green Party's candidate for Senate, mostly for the same reasons you voted for Nader.
I, too, believe that the idea that all of the American people's ideas can be accurately represented by only two parties is absurd on its face. But with our first-past-the-post voting system, the two-party system seems fairly well entrenched. The growth of a third party on one end of the ideological spectrum is self-defeating unless one of the major parties collapses or a roughly equivalent party arises on the other end. Both scenarios are pretty unlikely. Just look at the last few Canadian elections to see the effects of vote splitting. Having divided itself into four parties, Canada's politically liberal majority hasn't been able to throw out its widely disliked Conservative government.
While I support independent candidates in spirit – if I had my druthers, they'd all get the same coverage and fair shot as the big two – they just aren't practical without electoral reform such as ranked choice voting. This has been successfully implemented in San Francisco and some counties in Washington State, so hopefully it'll catch on and spread. Then we'll see the sort of choices the American people deserve.
So, back to my Obama vote. I said I thought my vote would be effective, even though New York was pretty much bound to go blue, anyway. Well, I voted for Obama (and anyone else I could) on the Working Families party line. On a national scale, it won't make a lick of difference. But in New York state politics, the WFP actually has a good deal of clout, and they're a generally more progressive organization than the Democratic party. I've got some beef with their internal organization, but as far as policy, they're not bad. Their endorsement can be a strong influence in Democratic primaries, so strengthening them leads directly to better general election candidates from the Democrats. I feel good about that.
Also, as cool as Nader is, I think it's time for him to step aside. His perennial candidacy has made him, unfairly, sort of a joke to a lot of people. Another of the defects of our political culture is the ability of trivial things to disqualify candidates. Remember the Dean scream? I think Nader needs to find a fresh face to carry his fight on.
As an aside: my captcha on this comment is Boxgox. That's a pretty awesome word.
Nader in 2012
I think Ralph Nader is disillusioned with the culture that continues to ignore the economic and political control exercised by the top tier of the wealthy. After 40 years, I'd be impatient with the system that keeps the power structure in place, a populace that continues to scramble for the "American dream", ignoring the lack of "Will of The People ". This is his motivation, and one other Nader quote, "If you don't turn on to politics, politics will turn on you".
I applaud the authors' reasons for voting Ralph Nader, if we, as a nation, don't hold our representatives responsible, the government will continue to lend a deaf ear to the constituents - US.