Ralph Nader is a political enigma, more an issue for debate than an actual presidential candidate.
Nader was in Portland Monday night, gathering 1,000 signatures so he can get on Oregon’s presidential ballot in November. He’s doing this across the country, gathering signatures to appear on 52 ballots.
But a signature to put somebody on a ballot doesn’t mean anything. A vote, as we all learned in American history, is worth much more. We found out exactly how much those votes matter in the past presidential election.
Some Democrats would like to blame Nader for that close election in 2000. They blame him for Al Gore’s close loss and point to the more than 97,000 votes he scored in Florida, a state Bush won by 537 votes officially, almost 2,000 in other counts. In Oregon, Gore won by a slim 6,765 votes in 2000, while Nader received 77,357 votes. Who knows, they say, what would have happened if Nader had nabbed 84,000 votes?
First off, it’s a myth that only Democrats vote for Ralph Nader. Maybe Nader only stole votes from Libertarian candidate Harry Browne in 2000. The common wisdom is that Nader stole Democrats, but that can’t be proved.
Second, welcome to a democracy. The only way to support our government is to give our voters as many choices as possible. The more choices the better. And this doesn’t even include write-in votes. Why aren’t people criticizing Cathy Gordon Brown, the Tennessee native who somehow pulled in 1,606 votes in 2000?
Nader is, simply, another candidate. We have a two-party system in America, and both parties are strong. And yes, both parties are in opposition to each other on most issues. For abortion? Vote Democratic. Like tax cuts? Vote Republican.
But what if you want somebody who supports gay marriage and also wants to crack down on media conglomerates? That’s Ralph Nader. Maybe Nader’s views match up with yours across the board, more so than any Democratic or Republican nominee. Are we supposed to have those people vote for a major-party candidate, simply because Nader doesn’t have a good chance to win the presidency? Are we supposed to ask voters to sacrifice their political views for the supposed greater good?
To win the presidency, a candidate has to work. If Nader is preventing you from winning, maybe you weren’t meant to be in the White House anyway.
So all the detractors need to back off, stop worrying about Nader and start focusing on how they can help their own candidates.
In 1968, George C. Wallace garnered the most electoral-college votes, 46, of any third-party candidate in American history. Wallace was an ultra-conservative governor of Alabama who was notorious for his extreme racism. But Wallace’s success didn’t hurt Republican candidate Richard Nixon, who easily won the presidency by 110 electoral-college votes (Bush won the 2000 election by five electoral-college votes). The actual vote was closer — Nixon won by 510,314 votes — but Wallace never prevented his conservative counterpart from making it to the White House.
Third parties, fourth parties and fifth parties are good for the democratic process. Don’t blame Nader for trying.