"Not I" Said The Cat Named Ralph Nader

I was recently asked by a family member why Ralph Nader didn't cost the democrats the election in 2000. This was done in part to explain the past but to also justify voting for Ralph and other third part candidates in the future. Many of the issues addressed about the 2000 election are still extremly relevant to the election in 2008. Some of these same factors will decide who wins tomorrow. As you can see above I placed a vote for Ralph in the current election via absentee ballot.

"Not I" Said The Cat, Named Ralph Nader
By Matthew McLoughlin

People often like to blame others for thier mistakes and inadquecies.  So its no suprise when people lose they like to shift the blame from themselves to someone else.  When the Democrats lost the election in 2000 and 2004 many chose to put the blame on someone else, that someone else is Ralph Nader.
 
The accusations were that many of Naders supports "took" votes away from Al Gore, being that there is no way these voters would have voted for George Bush. When I was on the streets petitioning to get Nader on the ballot in Illinois I got tons of arguments as to why Nader's presence caused the democrats to loose. None of these reasons found the democrats looking in the mirror.

Florida

Many like to blame Nader for costing Gore the state of Florida, since Gore lost the state of by only 537 votes.  While Nader did win 97,421 votes in Flordia, EVERY third party candidate won more then 537 votes.  In effect every third party candidate running effected the results in the state of Florida, not just Ralph Nader.  Some of these candidates weren't running serious campaigns, appearing only a few other state ballots, where as Ralph Nader was making a serious run for the presidency of the United States. There was also an astonishing 250,000 self-identified Democrats who voted for Bush in Florida.  Had 537 of those indivuals voted thier party line Gore would have won the state of Florida.
In the Democrats own magazine "Blueprint' party strategist and Democratic Leadership Council chair Al From stated that "The assertion that Nader's marginal vote hurt Gore is not borne out by polling data. When exit pollers asked voters how they would have voted in a two-way race, Bush actually won by a point. That was better than he did with Nader in the race." So according to the Democratic Party Gore still would have lost had Nader not been on the ballot."

Tennessee

Home states are usually a guarantee for candidates. Even if the candidate looses they almost always win their home state. When Mondale ran against Regan in 1984 the only state he won was Minnesota, his home state. Dukakis only one eight or nine states in 1988, one of them being Massachusetts his home state. When Jimmy Carter ran for reelection against Ronald Regan and only won seven states, one of them was his home state Georgia. Do you see a pattern developing? Gore lost in his home state of Tennessee, a state Clinton carried in both of his campaigns.

Why Not Look In The Mirror?

Gore ran a poor campaign and showed the American people zero personality. A personality that seemed to bloom a year later with an appearance on Saturday Night Live and a hit movie. Where was this charm when he needed to win the election?
There are two other main factors that cost Gore the election. Sadly the Democratic Party has refused to addresses either of these issues. The first being confusing ballots. Although there has been some reform every state has different voting rules and regulations. While this may seem fair for local elections it makes no sense on a national level. If we are all voting in the same contest we should all have to go through the same procedure.

The second issue which may cause Barack Obama the election (an issue he never brings up) is the electoral college. In 2000 Al Gore won 50,999,897 votes (48.4%), George Bush came away with 50,456,002 (47.9%). If a national popular vote had been the decider Al Gore would have rightfully won. Instead the confusing electoral college gave George Bush the election. Each state has a certain number of elector votes, which value each state. Winning certain states can carry more weight then others. This allows a candidate who didn't receive a majority of votes to win the election. This system was set up because our founding fathers believed the American people weren't smart enough to elect their leaders (the same reason they denied blacks, non land owners and women the right to vote for so long).
If you were to ask Al Gore who cost him the election his answer would be the electoral college, not Ralph Nader. As the law stands now the popular vote (the vote you place on election day) carries no legal weight. Just because a candidate wins the popular vote in a state doesn't mean the electoral college will go to them, that will be decided by the states electors.

Those Who Didn't Vote

One of the main reasons Nader didn't cost Gore the election can be based on those who choose not to vote.  Nearly fifty percent of the country didn't vote in the 2000 election.  Aren't those who didn't even bother showing up more to blame then those who placed a vote for what they belived in?  There is a reason fifty percent of the nation doesn't vote; the two parties don't speak to a majority of Americans.

Why I Voted For Ralph

All Ralph Nader has done is speak directly to the views of a majority of Americans that aren't being answered by the two major party candidates.  Why should those who voted for Nader been or be forced into voting for something they don't belive in? 
 
Voting is not a horse race.  You aren't supposed to vote for who you think will win but what you belive in.  If this doesn't happen democracy fails, as it has been in the United States.   Major changes in the history of the United States have all taken place through third party movements: abolition of slavery, women's rights, workers rights, civil rights, environmental and consumer protection. If we don't show our support for the changes Ralph is talking about they will never be part of our future. Hopefully one day this country will see nationalized health care, free college education, the end of corporate control, and the end of our destructive foreign policy. These things though will never happen if we don't stand by those sticking up for these ideals and thats why I encourage anyone who cares about these ideals to vote NADER/GONZALEZ in 2008.

To find out more about The Nader/Gonzalez campaign vist: votenader.org