Third-party candidates important to elections

Shadman is a third-year international development studies
student.

By Chad Shadman

For the first time in history, America witnessed an election
close to the way elections should be run. For once, people had a
choice and that wasn’t a choice between the lesser of two
evils. For once people who felt they had never had a real choice
before felt represented. Over two million people consciously
decided to cast their vote for Ralph Nader, knowing very well the
“consequences” the media was publicizing so
ardently.

The media, and all the people they convinced, were deeming Nader
supporters traitors to society for supporting the Green Party.
People were actually chastised for choosing to vote for a person in
whom they believed. Does this make any sense? Isn’t the point
of having an election to give people the opportunity to voice their
opinion? What is this country coming to if it is putting blame on a
group of people for speaking their beliefs?

After all, isn’t the freedom we have in this country the
foundation on which this nation has been built and on which it
thrives? All of a sudden this freedom of expression is looked down
upon by the very people who love it so much. Who ever said that
elections were only supposed to involve two candidates? Probably
the Republican and Democratic parties.

The unfortunate truth is that most people have been raised to
believe that this is the only way. Why would the two-party system
try so desperately to suppress a third-party candidate from rising
to the surface? Obviously it is because its supporters are
comfortable with the hold they have over the world. Why would they
want to put an end to the worldwide oppression, poverty and hunger
that is bringing them so much wealth?

The two parties resorted to some juvenile tactics during this
past election that, in the eyes of many, stripped them of any
integrity they may have had. They not only denied Nader the
opportunity to participate in the debates as a candidate, but they
also denied him access to the studio as a spectator, despite the
fact that he had a ticket in his hand.

More than half the country wanted to see Nader debate, yet their
desires were not met. That is a disgusting fact and another
indication that the politicians in whom people entrust their
beliefs aren’t really listening.

Gore did lose, but Nader was not the worst of his campaign
problems. In fact, it was Gore’s poor campaign strategies
that lost him the election. For instance, his choice of Joe
Lieberman wasn’t necessarily based upon Lieberman’s
experience or him being the best man for the job. He was the only
Democrat to truly chastise Clinton in public for his unorthodox
behavior. It was no secret that Gore wanted very much to distance
himself from the Clinton scandal and that Lieberman was the best
candidate for that purpose. By choosing Lieberman, Gore showed the
American public that he was in no way affiliated with the
scandal.

That may have been beneficial to his campaign had a majority of
the public really cared about the scandal to begin with. The only
thing Gore really showed the American public by this foolish act
was that he was not working for their best interests, but rather
the interests that would win him the presidency.

I’m pretty sure that somewhere down the line, Gore
realized his campaign tactics were losing him popularity and that
Nader was now becoming a threat. In a last minute bout of
desperation, the Democrats came up with the slogan that would
brainwash an entire population: “A vote for Nader is a vote
for Bush.” Rather than campaigning his ideas and beliefs,
Gore resorted to name-calling. The Democrats and the media were
actually begging people not to vote for their beliefs and, instead,
to vote for Gore.

Where is the integrity in that? Their reasoning was to keep the
Republicans out of office for the benefit of the country, as though
they were acting in a noble and altruistic manner solely for the
best interests of their fellow citizens. If you ask me, it was a
selfish and pathetic last minute attempt at seizing the
presidential throne to ensure themselves another four years of
wealth. Had Gore focused more on what his constituents wanted, as
opposed to the cheap tactics he chose to use, perhaps not so many
people would have deserted him.

Maybe looking at Gore’s flaws still isn’t enough.
Maybe we should delve further and look at the problems that the
Electoral College has posed. Gore did receive the popular vote, but
due to the electoral college, he couldn’t receive his
victory. Maybe people, rather than being petty and laying blame on
Nader, should find fault with the method of elections that,
according to many politicians, has lost all purpose. After all, a
process that keeps a candidate that a majority of the population
wants out of office is flawed and should be discarded.

In the end, there are many legitimate flaws in the election that
cost Gore the victory and none of them lay in the lap of Ralph
Nader. Because of Ralph Nader, this country has tasted a bit of
justice in the past election.

We need to open the doors to third-party candidates, not shut
them. The more we have to chose from, the more balance this country
will see. For all those people who choose to hate Nader for the
election results, maybe you should open your eyes and appreciate
all the positive things he’s helped to start regarding in the
election processes of the future.

Having Nader as an alternative candidate not only gave people a
choice they never had before, but also benefited this country more
than any previous candidate or president. Despite all the powerful
factors working against him, Nader single-handedly broke a
two-party trend that has dominated the election process since the
beginning. His positive impact may not be visible to the naked eye
today, but it will be evident in the years to come.