I know a lot of people don't want to "throw away their vote" on a third-party candidate. But just suppose that the system changed to make it easier for a third-party candidate to get into office, or Nader got the nomination of a major party. If Ralph Nader were a viable option, would you want him as president and why or why not?
2007-09-17 06:37:38 · 15 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
Ok, I just used him as an example. Fill in the blank with any third-party candidate, should you wish to:-)
2007-09-17 06:42:42 · update #1
I think that Naders last try ruined the country and gave us Bush. It will take decades for us to recover from the damage hes done. When a candidate isn't in the thirties in the polls, he shouldn't run.
As long as we have such a closely divided country, a third party is a really bad idea.
2007-09-17 06:46:57 · answer #1 · answered by justa 7 · 3⤊ 0⤋
I think Ralph Nader should have figured out by now that he will never be elected. But he seems he knows that and uses his same act time after time to split the vote. I think he's an egomaniacal idiot for continuing to play that game.
But as far as any third party candidate goes, it won't happen in this election. In a time of war Americans are going to go with what they know, it's part of the "comfort zone." If a third party candidate ever wins it will be during a time of peace and plenty for the U.S.
2007-09-17 07:18:30 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
Well, there are alot of things Nader gets right. For one thing, he opposes the Federal Reserve that destroys the value of the dollar for the benefit of the banks and Wall Street. He is against the policy of perpetual war for the illusion of perpetual peace (what has been more well-known as the Cold War and War on Terrorism, but is nothing more than a War on Freedom). He also opposes the violations of our civil liberties.
I would vote for Nader, even though he is dangerously wrong on some economic issues (he's a Socialist, but the only way to prosperity is through laissez-faire), assuming that there were no consistent libertarians on the ballot (such as a Ron Paul, Harry Browne, or Michael Badnarik) who were against all governmental abuses.
2007-09-17 06:48:06 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 1⤋
I would vote for a QUALIFIED third party candidate. But we barely have a qualified candidate in either of the two main parties and Ralph Nader sure doesn't fit the bill for "qualified".
2007-09-17 06:46:25 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
I would love to see a truly viable third-party candidate. I thought Ross Perot sounded promising until he went off the deep end. His basic concept of coming in for a single term -- without pay -- to clean up the mess and get the economy back on track was a great idea. If only he had stuck to that and not gotten off track in the quagmire of politics, I might have voted for him. We need a President who looks at the position as a service to the country and not as a source of personal power and wealth.
2007-09-17 06:48:19 · answer #5 · answered by ConcernedCitizen 7 · 1⤊ 1⤋
I like Ralph Nader. However, if he hadn't run in 2000, Bush would not be president. Gore would have made a much better president than either.
2007-09-17 07:08:00 · answer #6 · answered by wyldfyr 7 · 2⤊ 0⤋
Why Ralph Nader?
2007-09-17 06:41:43 · answer #7 · answered by Your #1 fan 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
NO. His main interest is in promoting himself and not developing ideas that are best for the majority. He has yet to get any significant number of votes, so I don't think he's a viable option.
2007-09-17 06:48:31 · answer #8 · answered by Mover50 2 · 2⤊ 0⤋
Ralph needs to go the way of the Convair.
He had is moment in the sun time for him to fade away.
2007-09-17 06:50:36 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
Bloomberg/Nader ticket. I have heard talk of this combo. I would have to take a closer look before I decided.
2007-09-17 06:49:40 · answer #10 · answered by gone 7 · 1⤊ 1⤋