Really, Ralph...Really?
This guy has about as much political sense as the cartoon character that share's his first name on The Simpsons! Ralph Nader has once again thrown his dumb ass into the US Presidential race. This man, who must realize that he has absolutely no hope in hell of winning a single Electoral College vote, let alone the election, has decided to waste more of his supporter's money, which should actually be used to treat whatever mental disorder they're obviously suffering from. This man has become such a political liability that he now has the term "Effect" attached to his name. If you're unfamiliar who Ralph Nader is, let me rustle up a short bio for you.
Mr. Nader, who is actually a Harvard Law School grad, if you can believe it, has unsuccessfully run for US President four times already, and is getting ready to fail for a 5th straight time. A left-wing activist, Nader became a well known consumer rights advocate who gained his notoriety by taking on the auto industry over safety concerns. And, though it loathes me to say so, the guy did a pretty good job as a consumer campaigner, and actually helped some innocent victims of consumer products get compensation. But Mr. Nader is best known as the guy who basically handed George W. Bush the election in 2000. Flashback to the days of the dangling CHAD if you would, please. It was the 97,421 ill informed, likely mentally unstable people in Florida (likely in the Everglades) who marked their X (which was likely very close to the signatures on their welfare forms) for Nader. Mr. Nader's supporters - if he wasn't around - would likely have voted Democrat. And those votes would likely have been enough to give Florida to Democrat Al Gore, and thus, would have put him into the White House. Hence the term the Nader Effect.
So should the Republican's be lining up to fund this guy's campaign this go round? I don't really think so. I suspect that Democrats and left-leaning social activists have actually learned their lesson from 2000, and are not going to bother spoiling their ballots by casting a vote for a 3rd party candidate. As such, I really don't see the Nader Effect wreaking havoc on the election this year like it did in 2000. So best of luck, Ralph! I'm sure there's some tattooed nimrod somewhere that's probably jumping for joy at your announcement to run again this year. And hey, who knows, 5th time could be the charm?!?
This is a post in a series focusing on the US Presidential race. As the 2008 campaign has global implications, the writers at Zhongnanhai will be occasionally posting on this topic. You can read more of our coverage by clicking here
Categories
US Presidential Race 20080 TrackBacks
Listed below are links to blogs that reference this entry: Really, Ralph...Really?.
TrackBack URL for this entry: http://www.zhongnanhaiblog.com/cgi-bin/mt/mt-t.cgi/251
Interestingly, the Nader effect perhaps demonstrates the inherent weakness of the "democratic" election system, which has been mathematically proven to be more related to gaming strategy than democracy (if I remember it correctly).
@cc:
Well, the Nader Effect most certianly points out how difficult it is for the US to break out of the 2-party system. But I wouldn't go as far as to say that it shows a weakness in the 'democratic' system. The fact that Gore lost that election, even though he got more popular support, certianly shows an inherent problem in the Electoral College system. But that's still should not be seen as a weakness of the overall democratic process. Just more of a glitch that could be ironed out with a little work.
It's good to see the commenters here understand that the "spoiler" issue is actually a flaw in the election system, not a fault of Nader's. But where Nader is complicit is in his own failure to talk about exactly that.
I've written about it in a very short piece called The Key Issue Suspiciously Missing from Ralph Nader's "Table".
Hope you'll check it out. It sheds a lot of light on the crux of the issue with Nader.
Paul,
Please pay a bit attention to the wording I used. It is the "inherent weakness of the "democratic" ELECTION system" on which I am casting doubt´, not the idea of democracy.
If you do a bit of research, you may find something (i.e."Archimedes' Revenge") about what I was/am referring to, i.e. there is an inherent flaw in the "democratic" election system that the system itself is unable to correct.
This is the finding of a piece of scientific research, if I am not wrong.
Paul,
Here is the specific question: "Is Democracy Mathematically Unsound?", which is Chapter 12 in the book.
Some "democracy" advocates/followers will push this issue aside easily, saying it is a trivial issue, while others, the vast majority, Perhaps are not even aware of the existence of this issue anyway. However, I find it interesting and important.
@cc:
Sorry about the confusion. Obviously I didn't read your initial post closely enough. I will take a peek at the information you provided me. I'm always curious to hear opinions on the democratic system. Thanks a lot for the heads up!