Would you vote for Ralph Nader in 2008?

Question

He is an honest man that has good ideas and believe in small government.

Nader ran again in 2000 as the candidate of the Green Party of the United States, which had been formed in the wake of his 1996 campaign. According to a former Green Party activist, Nader and his associates, not the Green Party, were the driving force behind the 2000 campaign. That year, he received 2.74% of the popular vote, missing the 5% needed to qualify the Green Party for federally distributed public funding in the next election, the claimed purpose of his Presidential bid.[11]

Nader campaigned against the pervasiveness of corporate power and spoke on the need for campaign finance reform, environmental justice, universal healthcare, affordable housing, free education through college, workers' rights, legalization of commercial hemp, and a shift in taxes to place the burden more heavily on corporations than on the middle and lower classes. He opposed pollution credits and giveaways of publicly owned assets.

Nader ran again in 2000 as the candidate of the Green Party of the United States, which had been formed in the wake of his 1996 campaign. According to a former Green Party activist, Nader and his associates, not the Green Party, were the driving force behind the 2000 campaign. That year, he received 2.74% of the popular vote, missing the 5% needed to qualify the Green Party for federally distributed public funding in the next election, the claimed purpose of his Presidential bid.[11]

Nader campaigned against the pervasiveness of corporate power and spoke on the need for campaign finance reform, environmental justice, universal healthcare, affordable housing, free education through college, workers' rights, legalization of commercial hemp, and a shift in taxes to place the burden more heavily on corporations than on the middle and lower classes. He opposed pollution credits and giveaways of publicly owned assets.

Answer 1

Sure I'd vote for him. As you say, he has integrity, real solutions (though some of the other answerers seem to be misinformed about them and they seem to think any form of limit to or regulation of privatization is "big gov't" or "socialism"), he also is intelligent, knows more about the issues than anyone on Capitol Hill, and has a record that speaks for itself--a record of actions (not just words) that can easily be judged to be working tirelessly FOR the interests of regular American people. Since I refuse to be broken into voting out of fear for the lesser of two evils, I will vote for the person who I believe will best represent my and America's interests if elected.

And for the people who vote out of fear--it's a downward spiral, a slippery slope and it will only encourage the candidates representing the two-party duopoly to get worse every four years because they know you're too afraid of the other guy. By the way, if you think the Democrats are really worried about Nader taking away votes, consider that in 2004 in some states like Illinois the democrats had to pass a law to allow Bush on the ballot but were working hard to keep Nader off the ballot, and consider that now that they have some control over the Congress they're not even bothering making an issue of getting Instant Run-Off voting or making people aware of it--No, the elected Democrats and its party leadership aren't concerned about Nader taking away votes, they aren't even that concerned about having a democracy, they're concerned that Nader might make people think about what's going on around them, which is why they mock him and so, try to silence him. Even if you think he can't win, if he runs, the more people support him, the more he can help push issues.

Answer 2

Unfortunately in the United States we have a two party system.
And our country now has been mapped out in blue and red to show that. Mr. Nader would serve the people better if he would join one of the parties (Democrats). He might not/probably wouldn't win the parties nomination but he could get some of his causes into the party's platform. This has been done historically by people outside the mainstream in the past like Jesse Jackson & Rev. Sharpton.

As a citizen our vote is one of our limited powers in having influence on our government. The last congressional election showed that the citizens were not pleased at how are government was behaving and shifted the power to the other side. The effect of that has been real policies like: the most comprehensive ethics reforms in decades, a minimum wage increase which will give 13 million Americans the pay raise,
a bill to expand potentially life-saving stem cell research, and
by approving new measures to implement the recommendations of the 9/11 Commission. None of this would have happened had the Republicans stayed in power.

Each vote counts. And yes, sometimes it means choosing between two evils, as they say. But the choice is also for the platform of ideas of the party.

Should Nader run- yes. Let his ideas and opinions be heard and debated. Should you vote for him (even if you know that he is the best candidate) no.

After the conventions it comes down to two people- one of them will win. Voting for Mickey mouse as a write in candidate would have the same effect as voting for Nader.

This is the voters choice- in which direction do you want the country to go - Republican or Democrat? Spend your vote as though it were money - invest it in something that can bring real returns.

Answer 3

Some of Ralph Naders ideas are not sound such as putting a wage cap on the wealthiest americans. I also note that the electability of Ralph Nader is quite low, why waste a 3rd party vote when the primary 2 canidates have had such close votes in the past? If Ralph Nader had a lot of backing I might consider him, but for the most part he is just a sideshow.

Answer 4

I sure would, if the american ellectoral system was a bit more favorable to third parties. But since it ain't I will vote for The democrats.

Answer 5

He does not believe in small government. He believes is a large welfare state government with a small military. He is honest, but he is a big fan of large socialist bureaucracies.

I would not vote for him. I want to make more than 150,000 a year and be allowed to keep my money.

Answer 6

I agree with none of what he wants, but he's one of the few people in politics (Jerry Brown is another) whom I can trust to do what he says. Only, I don't like what he says. So I might actually vote for him, ya know? Better the devil you know than the devil you don't know.

Answer 7

No

Answer 8

No.