What will a third-party vote accomplish?

SARAH ENGLAND/YH

On Tuesday, don't waste your vote. If you vote in one of the aforementioned states, a vote for a major party candidate is a vote for, or against, a foregone conclusion, and absolutely nothing more. If you have any faith in the democratic process, or a desire for a more democratic process, whether you're conservative or liberal, you must vote for Ralph Nader.

Is Nader just a spoiler, a man who's going to hand the White House, the Supreme Court, and the world as we know it to George W. Bush, DC '68? At least in those 36 states (and D.C.), according to CNN polls, the answer is unequivocally no. Neither one of the major party candidates holds a commanding lead over the other in these states, whether Nader gets one percent (and no automatic place on the 2004 ballot or Federal Matching Funds) or five or 10. In Connecticut, a Wed., Sept. 20 Quinnipiac poll gave Gore a 19-point edge. If you're liberal, you can—nay, must—vote your conscience. It's not a moral choice because there are no negative consequences to a Nader vote.

There are, however, negative consequences to a Gore vote in an already decided state. Moreover, there are negative consequences to a Bush vote, even if you support the Texas governor. It's a matter of democracy.

As a liberal, can you tell me you enthusiastically endorse a "New" Democratic Party that's mortgaged its core values in order to woo centrists? As a conservative, can you tell me you can tolerate a Democratic Party that's been appropriating your issues, watering them down enough to make them palatable to their constituency, and presenting itself as a genuine alternative? As a centrist, can you tell me that you prefer being pandered to over being challenged? As an American, can you tell me that you like such a restricted field of debate, or two major parties with no incentive to differentiate themselves from one another?

Certainly, there are differences between Bush and Gore. But the differences are both too few and too narrow to constitute a complete political debate. Furthermore, while Gore has mouthed liberal catchphrases, written liberal books, and maybe even has liberal convictions, his record of backing up words with actions is weak at best. I'm sure the same goes for Bush—will he really dare to stare down tens of millions of women on abortion, and risk destroying the Republican Party?

In order for non-centrist terms such as universal health care, globalization, corporate welfare, publically funded elections, death penalty ban—and their conservative equivalents—to enter the public discourse, both sides need watchdogs with a bite as well as a bark: a place on the ballot. Whatever your political stance, complete politics is in your interest: partial politics will represent you only part of the time. Strong third, fourth, fifth parties are the on-ly way we'll get it. A solid Green Party will be the first step.

And what about Pat Bu-chanan's Reform Party? Hell, if Nader were at one percent and Buchanan were at four, I might throw my vote his way, because it's in my interest as a liberal to have a Republican Par-ty that acknowledges its most conservative members. But Pat has one and Ralph has four, so let's make the Democrats liberal again while we have the chance. And what of Arizona, Florida, Indiana, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, New Hampshire, New Mexico, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Tennessee, Washington, West Virginia, Wisconsin? Here I dare only address liberals, and cautiously at that: it would be hard to blame you for voting Gore out of fear. Just remember this: a unified Green Party, even if only polling at five percent, will do far more to keep Democrats honest than those same five diffused throughout a 50 percent party
ever could.

The unlikelihood of proportional representation aside, America is and will remain a land of majoritarian, big tent politics, with two parties for hundreds of millions of people. And more power to it, I say—as long as the two tents cover everybody in need of a roof, instead of covering one another. Only a coexistent minoritarian politics, one as lasting as our current system, can guarantee that the canvas is big enough for all issues and all Americans. If you vote in one of the 36 (and even if you don't), whether you support Ralph Nader or not, the only value your vote can hold is in helping the Green Party meet the five percent benchmark. Because what happens when you become a minority, and majoritarianism has no place for you?

Sam Frank is a Herald columnist.

Nader: almost as destructive to liberalism as Bush.
By Cassandra Porsch

As election day looms, many liberal idealists are discouraged by the current political system. It's all about money, they say, or pandering to special interests. A vote for someone within this system is a vote for the system. Therefore, the logic continues, I will vote my conscience and vote for Nader. If elected, he would end corrupt politics. And hell, even if he doesn't get elected, at least I'll be protesting.

Some of these third-party enthusiasts go so far as to say that voting for a major party candidate is equivalent to throwing away one's vote. However, this notion is based on three erroneous assumptions. First, it implies that there is no difference between the two parties. Second, it assumes that even if a third-party candidate such as Nader could win office, he could get a substantial portion of his legislative program enacted. Finally, it ignores the fact that these two major parties do appeal to a large portion of centrist Americans—people whose votes and support are needed for any candidate to win.

The first point is the easiest to take on. Some Nader supporters claim that there is no difference between Bush and Gore because both candidates take campaign contributions from wealthy interests. Unfortunately, it costs a lot of money to run for office and Gore has had to accept contributions in order to compete with Bush. However, this doesn't make the two candidates the same. There is a reason that the Republicans are known as the party of the rich. Bush advocates tax cuts for big corporations and wealthy individuals, whereas Gore wants to give targeted tax cuts to the poor and middle class and credit families $10,000 for their children's college tuition. On social issues, the rift is even greater. The Republican platform has advocated a constitutional amendment to ban abortion. On education, Republican support for voucher programs shows that they would desert rather than improve public schools. On the environment, Bush has already proposed opening the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to oil drilling. Gore has come out against all of these ideas. And looking at Nader's website, it seems that he would agree with Gore's positions.

Next, even if Nader could win this election, it would be highly unlikely that he could get anything done in office. Our current political infrastructure requires a president to make allies in Congress. Not only is there no basis for Green support in Congress, but Nader has already proven how stubborn he is. In a recent interview he said, "If Gore cannot beat the bumbling Texas Governor [who has] that horrific record, what good is he?" This is just the kind of obstinate and dismissive attitude that gets one nowhere fast with Congress.

Finally, the liberal idealists that make up the backbone of the Green Party don't realize that not everyone thinks as they do. A president has to appeal to the majority—or at least somewhere around 45 percent—of Americans. This means compromise and moderation. Not everyone thinks corporations are inherently evil, though this is not to say that restrictions and incentives for corporations aren't needed. Gore has proposed and supported these measures—the Family and Medical Leave Act, tax incentives for meeting environmental quality standards, and affirmative action measures—whereas the Republicans have opposed them. The Green Party is a marginal movement that will never earn support from the center. And given our winner-take-all electoral system, it will never accomplish more than draining support from the left-leaning major party candidate. So I ask these well-meaning liberal defectors, do you really want to put a string of Republicans in office?

Asked recently on NPR's Weekend Edition whether he would feel guilty if he helped Bush get elected, because of a Bush presidency's potential threat to Roe v. Wade, Nader said that it wouldn't be a big deal if the decision were overturned. Then, he explained, the country would revert to the way it was beforehand—leaving this decision up to the states. An Oregon supporter, asked the same question by the New York Times on the environmental issue, said, "Pollution's going to increase in the short-term [under a Bush presidency], but I think that will bring a lot more people into the environmental movement. Sometimes you've got to hit bottom before you come back up." Well, maybe some people want to take these chances. Frankly, I'd rather not leave it up to the Bible Belt states to protect a woman's right to choose. I don't want any increase in pollution or to have to `hit bottom.' And so on Tues., Nov. 7, I will be voting accordingly. I ask true liberals, who care more about practical issues than making a nebulous and soon to be forgotten ideological statement, to do the same.

Cassandra Porsch, CC '01, is a member of Yale College Democrats and is working on the Gore campaign.

Back to Opinion...