(3rd) Party-Poopers

Many people blame Ralph Nader for Gore's loss in the 2000 election, and now for Kerry's loss in the recent 2004 elections. This article Run, Ralph, Run is written by CBSNews.com's Dick Meyer who supports Ralph's candicacy in these elections. He says, "Blaming Nader for 2000 is like blaming Steve Bartman for the Cubs failure to get in the World Series last year." Meyers thinks third parties add spice to national elections and believe they are crucial because "...skilled political mischief-makers capable of occasionally piercing the homogenized, focus group tested, corporate sponsored claptrap of the two big parties are a rare godsend. Because more voices are better than fewer voices." Downs has two categories under which third parties can be placed. The first is a party designed to win elections and the second is a party designed to influence already existing parties. It's hard for me to distinctly identify Nader's motive for running. From the article, it seems that he is disgruntled with the the two-party system, "It simply galls Nader that only two teams get to play in the big tournament. It's not in his nature to just take it without a fight." His main purpose seems to be to unseat Bush, whether it would be by winning the election or by influencing the Democrats to take a more leftward position. Analyzing Nader's effects in the elections by looking at Harold Hotelling's model of spatial location would say Nader is a possible scapegoat for Bush's victories. Kerry and Bush are strategically placed closely near equilibrium. Kerry is slightly to the left and Bush slightly to the right. With Nader placed at the far left, he captures extremists' votes, votes that could have gone to Kerry. The article Is Nader Poised to Spoil? shows that in the 2000 election, Nader won 97,488 votes from Florida, in which Bush won by 537, and in New Hampshire, Nader earned 22,198 votes. Bush won New Hampshire by 7211 votes. These figures conclude that Al Gore would have won the presidency if not for Nader. However, Nader does bring good news to radical liberals who feel alienated or indifferent by the rightward shift of the Democratic party. He offers an alternative that better represents them. Meyers agrees by saying, "Two parties, nearly as similar as Coke and Pepsi, don't satisfy all consumers." In this way, Nader gets people interested in the political process who would otherwise not participate. And isn't that what really matters in a democracy? Having third party candidates allows people who feel disenfranchised with the system to have their voices represented. So, maybe Nader is more than just a scapegoat.