In response to Samantha Roth's op-ed in the April 16 issue of The Spectrum, titled "Why Nader Should Run," I would like to agree with her on many of her points. I am a strong Nader supporter, as he is a great crusader for consumer rights, and his record against unethical corporate practices is astounding.
I supported his presidential run in 2000 under the Green Party ticket and I try my best to go to any of his speeches. I also support Nader's run for president this year and hope that he will act as a watchdog for both the Democrats and Republicans. However, I will not be voting for Nader in 2004.
I do not agree with many who think that Nader takes away votes from the Democratic party; that kind of reasoning presupposes that the Democrats deserve these votes when they obviously do not. I also do not think that Nader cost Gore the election, which Roth's evidence clearly shows. Still, I will not be voting for Nader in 2004.
I do not agree, like many, that we cannot vote for Nader because it's a "vote Bush out at all costs" situation. I do not want George W. Bush to be president for another four years; that said, I also do not think that voting for Nader will be an effective use of my vote.
In 2000, Nader ran as the candidate for the Green Party. Anyone with common sense knew that Nader would not win the election. However, his supporters hoped that he would get 5 percent of the vote and guarantee federal aid for the Green Party, and increase possibilities for the party to grow as a significant third party.
This year, Nader is not running for any party and will obviously not win the election. No third party will gain federal aid from his run, nor will he increase the visibility of any third party to increase their chances for local and state elections. As a result, a vote for Nader will only help one person: Ralph Nader.
I am not implying that Nader is an egomaniac. However, voting for Nader will be a wasted vote. If. Nader really wanted his run to be for the benefit of all third parties, he would instead endorse a third party candidate so that candidate could have better chances of advancing his party. Nader's party is a party of one, and will not benefit the creation or advancement of any third party.
As such, I will not be voting for Nader in 2004. If Nader wants to have a significant affect within government, he would run for Senate or the House of Representatives. This is a realistic goal and would have more of an effect on legislation.
Photo: Courtesy of Laron Fomby
