Editorial: Before voting Nader, consider political impact

Ralph Nader is a quandary for liberal American voters ““
and, once again, a potential spoiler for the Democratic
party’s hopes.

The consumer advocate has announced plans to run for president
as an independent. Progressive-minded citizens should not vote for
him since he has absolutely no chance to be elected.

The 2000 presidential election showed how close elections can be
““ and many people feel Nader was a determining factor in that
race. In the pivotal state of Florida, Nader got 97,000 votes.

No one can ever be 100 percent sure if those voters would have
cast their lot for then-Vice President Al Gore, then-Governor
George Bush, another candidate or no one at all if Nader had not
been in the race. But the nearly 100,000 votes for Nader had a
significant impact on the final outcome in that state, which
““ with a little help from the Supreme Court
““ swung the pendulum for Bush.

Given how conservative the Bush administration has been,
liberals should fear a repeat of that situation this November. And
now the stakes are even higher than they were before. The economy
is struggling, national debt is at record levels, U.S. troops are
committed around the world, and Bush and Co. roll back
environmental safeguards regularly. For voters who see Bush as a
problem rather than a solution, a vote for Nader must be weighed
against the possibility that such a vote could go to whoever winds
up as the Democratic nominee.

Certainly, none of this takes away from Nader’s right to
enter the race. There is also no doubt that Nader has played an
important role in past elections ““ and in American
history.

He is consistently willing to tackle sensitive issues that
mainstream candidates are loathe to handle. Nader’s Web site
from 2000 highlights, “restraining corporate power,”
“protecting consumer rights,” and “campaign
finance reform,” as some of the issues he feels most strongly
about. These are all important issues that mainstream candidates
often shy away from during their campaigns.

Nader plays an important role in national politics. And while
Nader clearly has a right to run, it is important to recognize the
potential significance of a vote for him in 2004.

Nader will not run on the Green Party ticket, but for those who
may want to vote for him despite his lack of a party endorsement,
the issue of who will actually win in 2004 should be a
consideration.

Like it or not, elections in the United States are not friendly
to third-party candidates. If a voter simply wants to make a point,
a vote for Nader is as valid as ever. But if a voter wants their
vote to directly influence who will be the next president, a Nader
vote is meaningless.

Voters face a serious decision in 2004. Will they endorse four
more years of Bush, or select a Democrat who will offer a different
vision?

There are no guarantees in a political race, and Nader could be
everything Bush wishes for ““ again.