So, you all know by now that Ralph Nader has decided to run once again. To which I say, so what?
The only harm I see coming from this is that he provides the Democrats with a convenient scapegoat. If he gets even 50 votes in each state they will use him as an excuse - they didn't lose the election because of their weak candidate, or their poor campaign, or their unpopular platform...nope, they will have lost because there was a 'spoiler' in the race.
We live in a country where anyone who meets two criteria can run for office - born in America at least 35 years ago - and have a chance of winning. How great is that? We have been limited in a very real way to only two viable choices in each Presidential election for a very long time. There are pros and cons to that situation, but I tend to think we would get better choices if we got more choices.
Currently, a good many votes are cast not for a candidate but against his opponent (witness the current "anybody but Bush" meme) I have yet to meet any thinking Democrats who are excited about any of their choices, and there are a great many Republics who have been disappointed in some of W's actions (spending, spending, spending).
Does this mean there is a chance I'll be voting for Kerry/Edwards/Nader...anyone but Bush? Not a chance. I've never been a single issue voter and, on the majority of issues, Bush wins - hands down.
luckily we still live in a country that doesn't go by the popular vote, eh??
what do the people know anyway?
Posted by: ryan at February 25, 2004 02:23 AMAnd your problem with the electoral college would be....?
or are you just bitter? ;-)
Posted by: Vox at February 25, 2004 10:49 AM