Principles and pragmatism
A lot of Democrats are trying to stop Ralph Nader from getting on the ballot in some states, including Pennsylvania, and a lot of Republicans are trying to help him get on so he will siphon votes from Kerry. I sympathize with my fellow Democrats but I believe there is a greater principle at stake here. While I hope Kerry wins, I believe that the monopoly the two parties share over the political process, from presidential debates to ballot access to fundraising, poses a danger to our democracy, and thus I believe in the right of any third-party candidate to gain access to the ballot. I believe that there are enough differences between the parties--and Bush and Kerry--that it does matter who wins. But let's face it--on many key issues Republicans and Democrats are fighting at the margins. One of the reasons we have no serious third parties is our winner-take-all electoral system; but the two parties have added plenty of barriers to perpetuate their stranglehold on political power. (Including the requirements for ballot access.) And that should give us all pause.
Fester, whose opinions I respect if not always share, is looking into a challenge of Nader's signatures. Here is my response:
I'm sorry; I want Bush defeated and Kerry elected like you, but I think Ralph Nader, so long as he does follow the rules, deserves a spot on the ballot, as do any other third party candidates. I understand that Republicans are trying to help Nader to get on the ballot in some states, in the hopes that he will be a spoiler, and I understand that carries potential for much chicanery. If you care about the integrity of the process, then I respect your efforts; I just hate to see Nader's signatures challenged because as Democrats we fear the impact he will have on the election.
posted by Jonathan Potts at
7:06 PM
2 Comments:
Jonathan; First let me thank you for the kinds words regarding your respect for my writing. I fully recripocate towards you. Secondly, as I commented to your basic response over at my blog, I agree with you; as long as Nader's ballot access petition drive followed the rules that are clearly established before they started the process and can collect 25,000+ valid signatures, then he sure as hell deserves to be on the ballot. However the state only does a cursory scan of the data. If a more comprehensive check needs to be made to ensure that the rules are followed, some outside individual needs to sue the state to ensure a comprehensive examination. For a suit to be successful, the plaintiff needs to know if s/he has a chance in hell of winning. I was just a little data-entry monkey today to evaluate whether or not it is worth going forward with a suit. My guess from what I was seeing, is yes, it is questionable whether or not Nader will have received 25,000 valid signatures.
Now onto the matter of principals; I would love to live in a country where there are multi-member districts, proportional representation and other means of ensuring third, fourth and fifth party representatives beyond extreme cultural splits/seperatists movements which is the only way single member districts with first past the post countries see long lasting non-duopolies. However, this country has decided to stick with first past the post so that is normative talk and not prescriptive talk. I also think that there are more pressing problems that need to be addressed than a nationwide simeualtaneous (sic) change to IRV or any other technical fixes. And it would need to be simeaultenaous (sic) if there would ever be a chance of it being enacted.
10:49 PM
It's not that want to see us turn into Israel or Italy when it comes to party politics. I do, however, think we need to acknowledge that it isn't just our system of government that favors a two-party system; the parties themselves have erected all kinds of barriers, ballot access being one, to entry to the political arena. The system is rigged, de facto and de jure, to give us two dominant parties.
You'll also get no argument from me that Ralph Nader is a narcissist, as was Ross Perot. Nonetheless, it remains the responsibility of the Democratic candidate, in this case Kerry, to convince Nader supporters that they and the nation will be better off if they vote for Kerry. If he fails to do that, and Nader grabs enough votes in a key state to throw the election to Bush, well, that's the price of living in a democracy.
6:47 PM
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home