By Rob Kall

OpEdNews.com

My first response to Nader's announcement that he's running agains was that he's an idiotic fool, that he would even consider helping George Bush.  Then I thought about it and considered that maybe he's an egomaniac and just wants to stay in the headlines.  But I doubt this. I imagine for most people, Nader's decision will actually hurt his organization and his reputation.

Or, could he be doing this because he is getting money from some slimy Texas right winger, or one of the same billionaires who channel hundreds of millions into the right wing neocon think tanks?

It hurts to think these possibilities because Nader was such a good guy, perhaps even a heroic figure, for decades. But he threw that away with his 2000 campaign, which undoubtedly insured the election of George Bush. IN FLorida alone, he took over 90,000 votes. And Gore lost by under 600.

Still, there is truth to his argument that the differences between the republicans and the Democratic party are not great. As the progressive candidates have been eliminated from the primary race, (with Kucinich barely eking out one, two or three percentage showings in most states) we are faced with fairly equivalent choices between two centrist candidates. While the bush propaganda team tries to characterize Kerry as a liberal, he looks awfully "inside-the-beltway" to me.

Don't get me wrong. I'm an ABB (anyone but Bush) person, but I really would prefer to see a president who I am enthusiastic about electing rather than one who I am settling for as a replacement for the worst evil of Bush.

There's one other consideration that Nader is suggesting-- that he'll hurt Bush more than he will the democrats. At first hearing, I ignored this argument. But upon reflection, he may be right. I can't imagine a self-respecting green party member who has seen the catastrophic devastation Rove, Bush and their sycophants have perpetrated upon our nation and this planet supporting Ralph Nader, at the risk of re-electing George Bush. I can't imagine any democrat supporting Nader.

But there may be a good number of Republicans who are disgusted enough not to vote for Bush to cast a protest vote, who don't want to vote for the Democrat candidate. That's where Nader might come in as the spoiler for Republicans.  Of course, if he doesn't run, then those disgruntled Republicans-- and I keep hearing from more and more of them-- will have to cast their vote for the democratic candidate to express their dis-satisfaction. A recent poll showed that 30% of Republicans are either angry or dis-satisfied with Bush, so we could be talking about significant numbers. If he takes that route, then his positions will have to be defined so he lures Republicans rather than progressives. We'll have to wait to see how that pans out.

The sad thing is, there is a lot of truth in what Nader says about the lack of differences between the two parties. And we really do need a viable way to allow third party candidates to enter elections. But before it can really be a safe, healthy thing for this nation, we need to institute, preferably at a national level, a change in the election process so we have instant run-off elections. That way, when you vote, you list your first, second and third choice candidates. If no single candidate gets 50% of the vote plus one, the candidate with the least number of votes, or the candidates with less than a certain percentage of votes is/are removed from the ballot count. If that candidate was your first choice, then your ballot is re-entered for your second choice candidate.

The beauty of instant run-off elections is it allows a healthy diversity in elections. You get to vote for  your real first choice, from your heart, not the miserable compromise you settle for. 

In the last presidential election, my guess is that both Pat Buchanan and Ralph Nader would have had much stronger percentages of the vote on the first round. Then,  in the instant run-offs, they'd have been pulled out of the count, and Gore would have creamed Bush. Meanwhile, the extent of voter dis-satisfaction would have been registered and the third parties would have built a track record of robust minority support.

Nader should be putting all his efforts into pushing for instant run-off elections, maybe even negotiating with the other two parties to get out of the race if they agree to support them. Meanwhile, his theory that his candidacy will attract more Republicans than Democrats and Greens is too risky for me.

Ralph, don't run.

Rob Kall rob@opednews.com is editor/founder of  OpEdNews.com, president of Futurehealth, Inc. and organizer of the Futurehealth Winter Brain, Optimal Functioning and StoryCon Meeting.  This article is copyright Rob Kall and originally published by opednews.com but permission is granted for reprint in print, email, blog or web media so long as this credit paragraph is attached.  Over 85 other articles by Rob Kall

 letters from a readers, in response to this article

The best thing that has happened concerning the upcoming election is Ralph Nader. He will open up the minds of the American people to "SHOW" the corruption of the Democrats, Republicans, and Big business. I usually vote for the Best candidate regardless of the political affiliation. I hate the the Bush administration on the environment, and despise the sicko liberal queer loving democrats.  Tax & Spend on the Left---Spend&Spend on the Right. Not the best of options.         GO RALPH

Dear Rob,

In regards to your recent article "Is Presidential Candidate Nader an egomaniac a Fool, a Funded-by-Republicans-Sell-out... or Could He Actually Help Beat Bush?", what if you totally exclude the premise that this is about winning and losing an election? What if you look at all of this as just one big national debate, one which doesn't climax in some sort of buzzer-ending game-over election conclusion?

I'm a Kucinich supporter because of his stances on the real issues. I continue to donate to his campaign because I want his voice to be heard.

Once Terry McAuliff(sp?) and the DNC sweep Kucinich out of the way there will be no chance for any meaningful discussion on national issues.

Instead, we'll hear more and more about "military service". And based on the fact that wartime presidents tend to get re-elected, people will pardon Bush over his questionable "service".

The ABB'ers can still vote for what slop the DNC/DLC serves up. The least that they could do is help engage the nation in meaningful debates. If this is too much to ask for, then I guess we can just scrap open dialog and get on with more killing.

Kindest regards,

Mark Nagel

Everett, WA