Q&A: Ralph Nader on The Green Party, Obama and Romney

  • Share
  • Read Later
MANDEL NGAN / AFP / Getty Images

Ralph Nader returned a phone call today to give TIME a statement on current Green Party presidential candidate Jill Stein, whom we wrote about yesterday:

“Jill Stein will ably carry forward the green banner of majoritarian agendas in our country. Let us hope that the two-party duopolized media notices.”

While we had the veteran third-party candidate on the line, we asked Nader about his problems with the two-party system, discourse between the two major candidates and the media’s coverage of the race.

What do you mean by the Green Party’s “majoritarian agendas”?

They’re for single-payer, everybody in, nobody out, free choice of doctor and hospital. That’s been a majoritarian position for years. Living wage? Overwhelming. Anti-war? [About] 70% want us out of Afghanistan now. The Green Party stands for bringing the soldiers back and curtailing the American empire. Cutting the military budget? A majority of Americans think that the military’s budget is too big and should be cut. Getting rid of special tax breaks for corporations? Overwhelming support. Renegotiating NAFTA and WTO? Majority support. I can go on and on.

So why doesn’t the Green Party have a majority-sized following? 

That’s the conundrum. A minority party fostering a majority agenda. The reason is that the two-party duopoly has every conceivable way to exclude and depress and harass a third-party. Whether it’s ballot access. Whether it’s harassing petitioners on the street. Whether it’s excluding them from debates. Whether it’s not polling them. And with a two-party, winner-take-all electoral system, it’s easy to enforce all those. Unlike multi-party Western countries where you have proportional representation, the voters [in America] know that if you get 10% of the vote, you don’t get anything. Whereas in Germany, you get 10% of the parliament. So voters say, ‘Let’s just vote for the least worst.’

So what are the Green Party’s unique difficulties in 2012?

The problem is not its agenda. The problem is that it cannot get a voice in the media. You look at the next four months, and there will be virtually nothing on it in the New York Times. The only time there will be any attention is when it can be accused of being a spoiler, in a state like Ohio or something.

Was that your experience?

Oh, yes. The only front-page story [I remember getting] in 2004 was [a reporter] saying I presented an electoral-college threat to the Democrats.

What kind of coverage should there be?

Agenda. I’d like to see the comparison of agendas. The dialogue between Romney and Obama is insipidly narrow and juvenile. It’s like they can’t stop themselves. It’s like a whirlpool. So some of the major questions, which the Green Party addresses, are never even discussed. And to see [major news outlets] again and again repeat the same stuff, the same four sentences … it’s just absurd.

Are there particular back-and-forths between Obama and Romney that you’ve found frustrating?

Look at Bain Capital. That’s a good one-time story, two-time story. But now the question has devolved into ‘Did he create 100,000 jobs? 20,000 jobs? 150,000 jobs? Did he lose 50,000 jobs?’ You should go from a story on Bain Capital to ‘What are we going to do about these trade agreements?’ WTO. NAFTA. We’re the losers. We’re the ones who have the bigger and bigger trade deficits, which are an example of exporting jobs.

People are frustrated with Washington, sick of stagnation or divisiveness. If you were going to pick a fundamental problem area where politics needs to change, what would it be?

There isn’t just one. These are seamless webs. But obviously, all the politicians grumble about how grimy it is to raise money and go to these PAC meetings and have to get on their knees and beg. And when it comes to the campaign year, they both agree not to make an issue out of it, because they both want to raise more money. So there’s never an opportunity for the voter to distinguish between the parties. And Obama’s as bad as Romney.

Do you look at those candidates and think there’s anything that they’re doing right?

That’s not how you want to look at it. Right now it’s a race to the lowest common denominator. Just compare the Democrats to the ’60s and the Republicans to the ’50s. And see the difference. There you see the trend, the decay, the decadence.

How much of a factor do you think third-party candidates will be this cycle, and how much of a factor should they be? 

They’re not going to be a factor. It’s a vicious circle. They’re first labeled with ‘You can’t win.’ So you’re a spoiler. So you’re not going to get many votes. You’re not going to be polled because you won’t show up in the polls. And you’re not raising much money. Unfortunately, it doesn’t look good.

61 comments
Sort: Newest | Oldest
tomadachi65
tomadachi65

The Republican and the Democratic parties are never going to allow another party to participate in the election system as long as they can control it. This is ony natural. I don't believe there is a way to correct this problem with our current system and our current system will never change as long as we allow congress to do its will and not the publics will.

Adam Brewer
Adam Brewer

I have all the respect in the world for Ralph Nader.  He ran for president hoping that he'd get enough votes to demonstrate the 'demand' for a change in the political system and that's the bottom line.  He's a great consumer advocate who always has the best interest of the middle class in mind.

whitechildren
whitechildren

The US Founders never would have imagined an American elite so corrupt that they would dissolve the people and import a new one. But how about the WHITES? There future?

How is this not genocide:

White countries are being flooded by non-whites. We are told to be TOLERANT. We are forced to integrate.

With assimilation we see the extinction of one race only, the white race. Its not funny, not comedy, its white genocide.

katmando
katmando

@whitechildren if this is true than why are we not breeding to beat the band ? The Catholic church made that point in religion so why aren't the racist doing their share and breed like rabbits if they are so afraid of racial genocide? We did it to ourselves with 1970's preaching zero population theories; of there not being enough resources to feed all the future generations?Turn your fear of what is to what can be .

Dameocrat
Dameocrat

Ralph had his day.  His biggest error was not owning up to his role in making Gore, another weak Obama-like dem lose. Losing is what you mainstream dems call being spoiled. As if this is a legimate concept in a democracy.  He should have said damn right I made you peekid centrists lose, and i'll do it again. Then we should have run a bunch of greens against centrist Senators and Congress people. This would have made many of them lose and open those seats up for later progressive wins. it also would have forced their donors to spend way more money, on a number of races, which is a good thing as it makes them more poor, and gives them less bribe money to spend on politicians. At some point many would come to the conclusion that centrists are not worth investing in. These are two completely progressive goals that do not require a win or anywhere close to one.

Ralph also assumes that the only way to change things is to win, when the socalled spoiler strategy can also be used to discipline bad dems. Since we only need enough votes to cause them a loss this is not difficult.  Many elections are within 1 to 5 points.  See, you don't have to win, or come anywhere near it, to purge bad, low quality politicians, of a certain corrupt philosophy.

Our republican democracy does not really accomodate majorities all that well, so you have to take advantage of its elite bias.

anon76returns
anon76returns

Nothing would teach those bad dems a lesson better than getting all of them voted out of office.  I'm sure that while they were all out of office the Rs would be running the country as a benevolent theocracy.

S K
S K

and Ralph hasn't been involved with GP since 04.. when they denied him their presidential nomination to prove a point.. and failed miserably.. he ran as indie progressive in 04 and 08 and has had sharp words about the GP. calling it a "cabal" among other things. 

S K
S K

as a follow up on this, Ralph Nader already threw his support behind former Salt Lake Mayor Rocky Anderson, who is running on the Justice Party ticket, article about that herehttp://www.ksl.com/?nid=96... and video of Ralph on CBS herehttp://www.youtube.com/wat.... Ralph also introduced Rocky when he received the nomination of the Oregon Progressive Party, a party that backed Nader in 08http://www.youtube.com/watch... . Rocky's campaign manager Sally Soriano was Nader's 08 campaign manager (and was involved with his 2000 and 2004 campaigns) and Rocky has also received the nomination of other 3rd parties that backed Nader in 08, such as the New Mexico Independent Party .

Jared Lee
Jared Lee

Good article. If you're interested in actually hearing from the candidates, Democracy Now! had them on their show today, broadcasting from the Green Party convention. You probably won't hear from them anywhere else! www.democracynow.org

MikeJonesg
MikeJonesg

yeah

the US has a Prisoners Dilemma with Third party candidates. Except that

instead of 2 people who need to cooperate, you need millions. This

changes the math so that it's rational to be risk averse and choose the

middling position instead of voting for a third party candidate.

I can not stand the 2 party system so get rid of first past the post and then we'll talk.

Sage__Owl
Sage__Owl

Wow! This is an excellent comment. It's almost like something I would have said myself hours previous.

anon76returns
anon76returns

I'm thinking these might be spambots where the High Sheriffs have managed filter the spam.  Maybe just wishful thinking on my part.

Tim de Phan
Tim de Phan

Stay within the duopoly and the planet will burn, burn, burn.

Jem Maxwell
Jem Maxwell

Nader can’t blame the Greens failures on corporations, Democrats, and Republicans alone. Citizen’s United certainly hurts a lot, but it’s only 50% of the problem. He has failed to build popularity by telling a narrative that speaks to most Americans, grabs their attention gets them talking, thinking, and then doing. That’s only your fault Nader. Build a popular consensus of 10 million Americans and then you might have something. It's easy to start an empty 3rd Party with a small group of people without having to do any work to reach out and build a popular consensus on any issue. I can form a 3rd Party anytime I want with my friends. It's not a real party. Americans want things their way or the highway. "Have it your way" as Burger King says. We feel entitled to get sundried tomatoes rather than pickles and to replace fries with a salad. Our culture on Amazon, Ebay, On-Demand, and Cable TV has made us impatient and discerning consumers that has now made us the kind of citizen that thinks like a consumer. We don’t like our political parties or government the same way we don’t like a sitcom or a brand of jeans. Since 1968 the Nader Democrats abandoned their party and got what they deserved, but not what America deserved who needed them. McGovern asked the kids to put a tie and suit on and come back to the convention, but they didn’t and never did. The Dems of 68 weren’t all that great, but we should have counted our blessings more, because they look pretty great today.

We don’t need to reinvent America. I think the America we had between 1933 and 1965 was pretty good. Our country was in a bad shape, we were bigots, and more, but as citizens we were so much better and so were our parties, because half of us succeeded in working to change all that. They gave us a New Deal, damns, highways, homes, GI Bill, ended segregation, gave us the Civil Rights Act, Social Security, and Medicare. Even Nixon gave us the EPA. These recent years are so similar to that era, but the Worst Generation of the Baby Boomers have chosen to meet the challenges of 2 Wars and a Depression the opposite of everything that generation ever did. Instead of doing what America knew worked between 1933-1948, we’re trying totally radically new policies on taxes and jobs. Why America?

Most of the developed democratic world is more corrupt than us and yet people get health care, maternity leave, better schools, vacation, living wages, and even better environmental laws. Why is this? It’s because Europeans don't expect their government or parties to be perfect or their politicians not to have affairs. If you go to their restaurants you can’t substitute anything and you must order from the menu. Furthermore, they engage in their parties and bully their way just as well as the mafia to get what they want. Ever see what the French people do when they don't get what they want from their government. They shut things down, but usually just have control of their parties enough to get what they want.

So I’m fine having a 3rd party someday. But you have to prove your worth by doing real work. If you can’t organize a few million Americans to change the Democratic Party around to be a little more progressive, just as the Evangelicals and Tea Party made the Republicans more conservative, then you can’t say you can form a 3rd Party of a few million people. Because if you party doesn’t have a few million people in it then it’s not a political party. You’re just a group of friends who refuse to associate with anyone that takes any effort to convince or might not agree with you on everything and ask you to compromise.

Occupy made the same mistake. They were winning only the 1st month. Why? It’s because they were “Occupying Popularity”. That’s what really matters. They Occupied Popularity by Occupying the Popular Attention with Popular Issues, then Occupied the Popular Discussion about these issues, and then Occupied the Popular Mind to Think About them. If they just kept it going, then they might have built a consensus big enough of millions of Americans to actually push through real change in our legislature and government. Instead, they narrowed the issues down to something only their small group of friends (Green Party) and their protest group (failed Anti-war group) could form a census about. They also started using dead or alienating language like “Bourgeois,” “the workers” rather than “hard working Americans” or “capitalists” rather than the new words they invented that were working like “1%” and “99%”, which helped illustrate similar ideas, but in ways you could build a consensus without demanding political conversion to a left-ideology (i.e. you don’t try to win any more arguments than needed in order to win). You also couldn’t call popular census of the 99% as what happens at an Occupy GA meeting in a park. You must instead find a way to do it with people sitting on their couch watching TV or eating at dinner or at the water cooler. So they lost the popular attention and we Americans lost, because they were doing something good for all of us for the 1st month.

rokinsteve
rokinsteve

I love how nobody has the guts to reply to me.  Yeah,  I'm the tough guy crying today cuz so many sodiers are commiting suicide.  You people suk...

Sue_N.
Sue_N.

Maybe people aren't replying to you because you're coming off like a 4-year-old having a tantrum. Try making a point instead of hurling insults.

bobell
bobell

First, put some ice in a towel and put it on your forehead,

Good.  Now, then ...

I'm not afraid of you, Steve, but I'm starting to worry.  What have you been ingesting?

Pnnto
Pnnto

Please see above.

rokinsteve
rokinsteve

Well, It's don't feed the trolls Thursday.  Otherwise I would be buried in replys about don't vote for Green Party.  Hey Democrats, eat it!

Guest
Guest

All the people attacking Nader, do you like the way the Democrats and Republicans and our political system operates as a whole?

bobell
bobell

Remember what Churchill said about Democracy? We aren't going to have a beter system anytime soon, no matter how badly the current one svcks. In the system we have, voting for Nader in 2000 was a disservice to the entire nation. Voting for any third-party candidate this time would be an equial sin.

Guest
Guest

OK, don't vote for a third party, fine.  But, are some of them worth listening to?

bobell
bobell

A long as you don't let them sucker you into voting for them.

There are even some non-candidates who are worth listening to.

jmac
jmac

"So why doesn't the Green Party have a majority-sized following?"  

They do.  We're called Democrats.  We compromise.  If Ralph Nadar had won a Congressional seat, he'd have voted with the Democrats the majority of the time.  Or sat on his hands and pouted because he was unwilling to compromise.   Reminds me of the Tea Party.

CasualElitist
CasualElitist

Compromise and apologist excuses are two different things. Obama has renewed the Patriot Act, and killed American citizens without due proccess. Those aren't just mere squabbles over policy, or differences in opinion; they're blatantly unconstitutional actions, which the American public needs to speak out against. Voting for third-Party candidates is the electoral way of doing so. In addition to the aforementioned disregard for law, Obama has appointed corporate fat-cats like Micheal Taylor to important regulatory agencies, entrenched insurance companies based on Wall Street profit rather than compassion and care, and allowed corporations like BP and Goldman-Sachs to escape any punishment for disobeying regulations. Unsurprisingly, these last two were some of his biggest campaign contributors.

When the Democrats are no longer the diet version of the GOP, you can ask me to compromise. If the Greens and Libertarians write at the wheel, I'd be more than happy to. But right now, there just aren't any substantive differences between the higher arenas of political debate to warrant a vote for either major party. Locally, this is a different story, as well as in a few state districts. You can try to play the nonsensical card that Nader cost Gore the White House (not true, by the way) or tell me that I should join you in cowardice, afraid that the party which is .01% worse will win more power. However, I will not. As Jill has said, silence has not been and will never be an effective political strategy. Furthermore, as the abolitionist Frederick Douglass said, "power concedes nothing without a demand". You, my friend, are not making any demands. Finally, as the stalwart statesman Benjamin Franklin admonished us many years ago, "They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety."

pollardty
pollardty

From what I understand Nader had trouble running his own outfit. Even though I respect his views and passion his style would work better in a dictatorship.

nflfoghorn
nflfoghorn

Unlike Bernie Sanders, I don't think Nader could ever bear to compromise. 

adamsarah292
adamsarah292

You assume the other side can actually GIVE me anything.

You also assume the other side won't take anything away.

I'd say you're wrong to assume.

adamsarah292
adamsarah292

  You assume the other side can actually GIVE me anything.

You also assume the other side won't take anything away.

I'd say you're wrong to assume.

adamsarah630
adamsarah630

You assume the other side can actually GIVE me anything.You also assume the other side won't take anything away.

I'd say you're wrong to assume.

YOU SHOULD READ THIS ARTICLE  ...... FinancialsReports.blogspot.com...

Stuart Zechman
Stuart Zechman

Thanks so much for this reporting, Katy Steinmetz, it's valuable.

bobell
bobell

I didn't read a word of this interview and I'm glad.  I wish I could find the synapses in my brain with any information about Ralph Nader and zap them all.  I'd wish I could zap Ralph Nader, but I wouldn't want to upset the High Sheriffs.

This man had as much to do as just about anyone in the world with inflicting eight years of George W. Bush on this country, all to satisfy his egregiously inflated ego.  He deserves oblivion, and Time should be embarrassed for having anything to do with him. Time should be embarrassed for printing his name in an opprobrium-free context. For shame!

I wouldn't have been so gentle were it not for some of his early work, which had merit.  But it also taught him some very unfortunate lessons.

[Insert appropriate infinitive form here] you, Ralph Nader.

Kevin Wayne
Kevin Wayne

Of course, let's forget that Al Gore cost himself the election by not winning his own home state. Delusional Democrats don't want to face up to that. Also, look on Youtube for "Al Gore Saddam Hussein WMD's." See the face of a man angrily deriding the Elder Bush for ignoring the (alleged) "threat" of Iraq.  Not the nice peaceful, progressive you've come to perceive him as, eh?

Now, do you remember who Gore's running mate was? A man who's no different than Dick Cheney.

No reason at all to think that if 9/11 happened under Gore's watch, we would be in the same place.

Tim de Phan
Tim de Phan

 I didn't read a thing you wrote and I'm glad. It's probably just mindless dribble.

bobell
bobell

Well., then. it's too bad you won't read this post, in which I point out that the word you reached for -- and missed -- is "drivel." I have lots of drivel to spare.  Try not reading some of my other posts.

Tim de Phan
Tim de Phan

What a brilliant comeback. You seem to be missing the point, which is to not judge something without even making the effort to understand it.

Tim de Phan
Tim de Phan

What a brilliant comeback. You seem to be missing the point, which is to not judge something without even making the effort to understand it.

Tim de Phan
Tim de Phan

What a brilliant comeback. You seem to be missing the point, which is to not judge something without even making the effort to understand it.

vijay
vijay

Nader has been dead-on since Day One.  Get over the election of 2000, your candidate should have run a better campaign. Furthermore, the ideas and campaign platforms were handed to Gore/Lieberman on a silver platter for them to take and run with. The fact that Gore didn't even take an iota of them reflects more poorly and terribly on the Democrats than any small electoral process Nader tried to mount. 

Strawman411
Strawman411

 Talk about throwing the baby out with the bathwater.  Sheesh, can you make an argument against anything he said?  Oh, right, you didn't read it.

The trope that Nader "inflicted" Bush on us has not only grown beyond tiresome, it is both inaccurate and pointless.  To think a president from the "liberal" wing of the Corporacratic Party would have meant a systemic improvement over Bush is to believe in fairy tales.

Both wings of the Corporacrats are, first and foremost, beholden to their masters, the bloated military/security/financial interests.  Oh, yeah, the actors and the details might have varied under Gore and/or Kerry, but little that affects us, the 99%, would have been a measurable improvement.

I voted for Mr. Nader every time he ran, and this November will pull the lever for Jill Stein.  Spoilers?  Yeah, this time, probably. 

Think what could happen when more of us wake up and get off the fat cats' bandwagon.

AlterYourEgo
AlterYourEgo

Gary Johnson for the Libertarians and Jill Stein for the Greens -- who will draw more votes?  Who will spoil what for whom?  I think it would be interesting to see them team up to get debate, ballot and media access.  

Will Lupinacci
Will Lupinacci

Reply is mostly to bobell

It's strategic analyzing (and ultimately voting) like this that ruins elections.  

Voting shouldn't be about betting, gaming, or tabloid quality gossip.  If citizens of the U.S. would just do half an hour of homework before voting.   Seeing who's on a reasonable amount of ballots, check out where the usual 4-5 candidates stand on the issues and then vote their conscience (free from editorial media brainwashing), a Green would win every time.  Nader is right about the greens having majoritarian positions on the issues.

Also on voting, rinse and repeat the above with the congressional candidates, who are ultimately more important than the presidency on domestic issues.

I'm not going to attach fault to Republicans, Dems, or Greens for the way we are now.  We need serious electoral reform, and a reduction of voter apathy before anything is going to get accomplished.  First-past-the-post does not work because and keeps 2 bought out parties in power.  IRV for single office first, while working at Proportional Representation for local and national congress.

anon76returns
anon76returns

That's actually a problem for both of them.  Comparing what Johnson says with what Nader says are the Green's "majoritarian" positions, it's pretty clear that the Libertarians and Greens will be first and foremost spoiling eachother by dividing the vote of those who are willing to look beyond the Dems and Repubs.  Teaming up would be smart for them, and I hope they do it.

rational72
rational72

Eh....hmmmm.. Gore ran a horrible campaign in 2000. For all of his environmental talk what did we get from our 8 years with Clinton? Did they address climate change? Did they address fuel standards? Did they address renewable energy? If my memory serves me correct, I think we got 3 new national parks....whoppeeee.... Nader gets the blame, but all the other 3rd party candidates in Florida equaled more votes than Nader received. Easy to pick on the Greens, most of us are passive and don't want to give it back. Thank Katherine Harris and the supreme court for 8 years of Bush....and I will say no thank you to another 4 years of Obama. Let me tell you what you can expect in his next 4 years, drones flying over your house....already happening, ignoring climate change, check, ramped up war on drugs, check, more folks in prison, check, a lack of universal healthcare, check, the continuation of the student loan shame, check.... Why oh why should I vote for Obama again? My choice, Jill Stein, may be a long shot, but at least I am voting for freedom, not to remain semi free. Enjoy the drones over your house, you can think Obama for that with your vote of approval. If you think Nader's ego is big, you should see the size of the ego the donkey and the elephant have.

Ivy_B
Ivy_B

How do you see your list of what to expect in Obama's next 4 years playing out if Romney is elected?

Why should you vote for Obama again? The Supreme Court. If he can appoint more than two justices in four years, I'll consider voting Green in 2016.

Pnnto
Pnnto

Steve, where did Ivy say she wouldn't vote Green Party down ticket? And calling her a troll is silly. 

Minneapolis has Green Party representation on the City Council (no small thing as Minneapolis is a "Weak Mayor" city). 

One reason that it's hard for me to take a GP seriously is that they haven't built the party up. I live in as blue a district (Mn-5) and city as there is and the GP hasn't run a serious challenger for either Congress or Mayor.

Swing for the fences every 4 years, or whenever there might be a close race, with an unqualified candidate isn't any way to build a movement.

rokinsteve
rokinsteve

Ivy, I wanna hear your real reason you wouldn't vote green party down ticket.  Troll...

nflfoghorn
nflfoghorn

Like I said yesterday, the perfect has become the enemy of the good.

"I can't get what I want from a Democrat--so I'll RUIN it for ya!"

With utmost respect to those who vote that way, these are the only greens with any influence:

Grass

Michigan State

Green Bay Packers

Eagles

Jets

Baylor

Oregon

USF

Celtics (ugh, even them)

0charles
0charles

 You are deluding yourself to think of the democrats as "good".  They have been complicit in waging wars of aggression, widening the gulf between the rich and the poor, and ramping up the police-prison-surveillance state.

Sen. Gore was a key proponent of Reagan's arming the Contra terrorists in Nicaragua.  I'm sure he would be as quick as Obama to support the coup in Honduras and recently in Paraguay.

The two progressive candidates in the 2008 democratic primaries got about 1% each.  I don't want to be part of your club.  I will stick with building the Green Party.  It's not perfect, but it is not sold out to sociopathic corporations.

rokinsteve
rokinsteve

nfl, Yesterday you said the enemy of the perfect.  How about Penn State?  You know, I had an incedent with a priest.  I'm very sad today. And you come across as a troll.

nflfoghorn
nflfoghorn

Hey, lay off the seriousness for a sec! 

Of course PSU is a sad, pathetic mess.  I would never joke about that.

But it's a pretty well-known fact that those who thought Nader was a viable candidate for prez tipped the scales for the GOTP in at least two recent national elections.

rokinsteve
rokinsteve

nfi, You forgot Penn State.  Turn over, you're done.  Cooked troll.  Why are we still in Afghanistan?  We have two grifters fore Prez an both are buzzard meat. 

rational72
rational72

How about....I can't get what I want from a democrat but I am going to vote for them anyway, because it makes too much sense to vote for someone that might actually give me what I want. http://www.gp.org/candidates/i....

nflfoghorn
nflfoghorn

You assume the other side can actually GIVE me anything.

You also assume the other side won't take anything away.

I'd say you're wrong to assume.

Sage__Owl
Sage__Owl

Yeah the US has a Prisoner's Dilemna with 3rd party candidates. Except that instead of 2 people who need to cooperate, you need millions. This changes the math so that it's rational to be risk averse and choose the middling position instead of voting for a third party candidate.

I can't stand the two party system so get rid of first past the post and then we'll talk.

deconstructiva
deconstructiva

Again, show us how voting for Stein helps keep Romney from winning the WH. You really have many here who are sympathetic to your cause but also know that keeping Romney OUT of the WH is important too. Show us how to achieve both goals this year. Please.

deconstructiva
deconstructiva

FTW. I feel sorry for Katy for being assigned to track him down, though am glad she got the task for writing about the Green party. Though I was skeptical to the party followers who replied (still think a POTUS vote for them this year benefits Romney and thus too risky), if they build strong local bases and win races from bottom up as suggested by commentariat, they can achieve success. But Nader's ego and shoot-the-moon approach only gave us W. Let's not have Romney from a repeat failure.

rokinsteve
rokinsteve

decon, I didn't vote for Clinton the second time cuz he's a perv.  I will vote Green Party for Pres.

bobell
bobell

I guess we've all been over-exposed to the loonies.  We're starting to sound like them.

It was Nader who argued that there was no difference bertween Bush and Gore.  He was wrong. Anyone who argues that there's no difference between Obama and Romney is equally wrong.  Anyone who votes for anyone other than Obama or Romney is throwing his/her vote away.  If you want your vote to be worthlress, go ahead and vote for some fringe candidate.  It's very unlikely to affect the result anyway -- which of course is just what all those third-party voters said in 2000.

I moved out of Never-Never-Land a long time ago.  Nader may be president of that place one of these days, or some other third-partier in some other imaginary place, but it ain't going to happen in 2012.  Even if one candidate rates a D-minus and the other an F, vote for the D-Minus.  This is too important an election to turn your ballot into toilet paper.

Disgusted with Obama?  Vote for the one candidate who can possibly displace him.  Hate them both so much you can't bring yourself to vote for either?  Move to Canada.  Neither is going to be running the Canadian govt in the forseeable future.

Shannon M. Coachman
Shannon M. Coachman

I can't stand the two party system so get rid of first past the post and then we'll talk...MayorMoney.blogspot.com