Ralph Nader

[codyvo]

Personally I think that in a country where their is as little political diversity as in the US a third party candidate is absolutely necessary but many people even those that are tremendously liberal think that Nader ruined Kerry's chance for election. I dont think that is right at all. I think Kerry should have taken a more liberal stand on almost all issues. People act like members of the green party are just liberal democrats but I think Kerry should have to win green party votes just like winning republican votes.

On another note, it is sad that Emperor Bush was elected for the first time but you can't just use Nader as a scapegoat. If we didn't have radical views, not that Nader is radical, we wouldn't have any diversity at all then we would all be the same and i do not like being the same as racists fucks like Bush.

[FeArANDLoAtHiNg]

Voters don't "belong" to a politician or a party. Therefore, Nader couldn't have stolen votes form Kerry.

[TheKwas]

The problem doesn't lie with Kerry not being liberal enough, because that would have simply lost him anti-bush conseratives who would have voted libertarian instead. The problem lies with first of all: The entire social system that is the United States, and 2nd of all: First Past the Post voting. As Duverger (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duverger%27s_law) would love to tell you, FPTP voting is bound to either result in a two party system where one is forced to constantly vote for the "lesser evil" or a system where a canidate with 30% of the vote wins and the leftover 70% is without representation.