An Independent's Perspective on Nader and Left Factionalization

I wrote this in response to this diary over at Daily Kos. I usually don't post there, but I was feeling in the mood to put in a few words about Nader as I do from time to time. The comment grew a bit longer than I had realized, so it became a diary here. Also, I hope to be back posting open threads by the 7th. I hope everyone is having a good summer thus far.

I completely empathize with the Florida debacle, but I find the idea that everything was Nader's fault overstating the case.

I'll level with everyone here. Yes, if Ralph Nader didn't run for President (or had at least endorsed Gore in Florida or New Hampshire) Al Gore probably would have won the Electoral College. I say "probably" because public opinion preferences are chaotic.

Look at the PUMA crowd for instance. Obama is obviously closer to Clinton on the issues than is McCain, but some Clinton supporters are vowing to vote for McCain in order to teach the party a lesson or for some other emotionally-based issue. I know a gentleman who swears he's done voting for Democrats because of the FISA issue. When I suggested he at least vote for a progressive independent to register his disappointment, he scoffed at me. Why not vote for a Republican, he said. That way Democrats are hurt double (one vote removed from their total and one vote added to their primary competitors) for their cowardice. So quite a bit of electoral preferences are not just as simple as voting for the candidate who shares your ideology.

There were an infinite number of ways Gore would have won the EC. Perhaps if he had chosen a different running mate, embraced Clinton, or highlighted different issues, he would have won. Perhaps if the SCOTUS would have allowed the recounts to continue, or if Gore would have asked for a statewide recount, he would have won. Similarly, how different would the election have been if none of the three socialist candidates had ran? We can't really know.

Nader is the easy out because he's the most visible and provides a convenient outlet for the disappointment that we've all been feeling for the last 7 1/2 years.

The question is, what should we learn from this? There are essentially two options. Make any and all attempts to keep Nader and others on the left off the ballot or to remake election law so that there is no "spoiler effect". The former will always alienate possible allies on the left (and even the right). Recall those emotional arguments. Working to keep left-wing independents and minor party candidates off the ballot may prove to backfire. People might think "wow, those Democrats think their only chance of winning is to limit me to two choices".

Pushing instant runoff voting, approval voting, or any other ranked voting method, I think, is a much better strategy. Democrats, Greens, Libertarians, independents, etc. can campaign jointly. Minor party candidates and progressive independents can tell their supporters to rank Democrats second. Imagine if the Democrats could get a large amount of 2nd choice vote for Libertarians. I think that'd be a great way to keep Democrats in power for the long term.

Essentially, I'm saying that yes, Nader is a reason why Gore didn't win, but he's not the only reason. And if those of us on the left, regardless of partisan stripe, worked together to eliminate the possibility of spoilers in future elections, both groups will be stronger and will remain allies. If the infighting continues and we fail to work together, then the spoiler effect will always be lurking around the corner, ready to throw another election to a Republican.

__________________________

I never broke the law; I am the law! -- George W. Bush Judge Dredd
I'm listening to...