Hi BC,

 I've heard that Nader argument a jillion times and it's crazy. Your analogy of the ruler
 was right on target. Seems Nader voters are not only incapable of voting strategically
 (and are thus willing to accept their least  preferred alternative), but many of them have
 forgotten how Nader himself is a sell-out; owning huge amounts of stock in many of the
 big corporations he claims as the enemy.

 I agree with much of Nader's message, but not his tactics. It became pretty clear early on
 in this last election that his only real goal was self-aggrandizement. In any case, there was
 absolutely zero chance of Nader winning that election, or any third party candidate, for
 that matter, and his candidacy did give the election to Bush.

 Think about it like this (this is called "Arrow's Paradox of Voting"):

 There are 3 candidates:

 Candidate A = George W. Bush
 Candidate B = Al Gore
 Candidate C = Ralph Nader

 (I won't count Buchanan because he was hardly a blip on the radar.)

 Each voter has a ranking of the 3 candidates. We can also therefore argue that voters generally fall
 into 3 categories: Bush voters, Gore voters, and Nader voters. Using simple logic and a glance of the
 policy positions of the 3 candidates, we can presume that the 3 types of voters ranked the candidates thusly:

 Voters "A"- 1) Bush, 2) Gore, 3) Nader
 Voters "B"- 1) Gore, 2) Nader, 3) Bush
 Voters "C"- 1) Nader, 2) Gore, 3) Bush

 By voting sincerely (i.e. for the candidate you want), rather than strategically,
 A gets 48.5%, B gets 48.5%, and C gets 3% of the vote (approximately).

 Given that Nader and Gore (candidates B and C) are closer on the ideolgical spectrum than Nader and Bush
 (candidates C and A), and likely are closer than Bush and Gore (candidates A and B)...though Nader voters
 might argue with that..., we get the result we did- a victory for the candidate that was, in all likelihood,
 the *least preferred* among the 3 candidates of the majority of voters (51.5%).

 This of course doesn't count the 50% of registered voters who didn't turn out, and in effect,
 voted against democracy  itself, but that's another story.

 Now, voting sincerely isn't necessarily a bad thing, unless there exists a set of electoral rules that makes it
 impossible for anyone other than a major party candidate to win an election. (I won't bother going into the
 details of this, but it should be obvious anyway.) In that case, and until the electoral rules are revised,
 elections are and should be treated as a race between the 2 major party candidates.

 The election of 1992 is another example of this. Clinton got 43% of the vote, Bush got 38%, and Perot got 19%.
 Given that Perot and Bush were arguably closer on the "ruler", and therefore that both Bush and Perot voters
 probably ranked Clinton as their 3rd choice, the person who was the least preferred by the majority of the
 people went on to win the election.
 (I know this isn't necessarily something you want to hear, given your support of Clinton,
  but his performance in '96 should vindicate him in any case.)

 Just as Perot probably gave Clinton the election in '92, Nader gave it to Bush in '00.

 Furthermore, Nader voters are either clueless or full of it when they say they don't have a preference
 between A and B (Bush and Gore) because they are both crooks. Granted that may be true, but we are
 talking about degree of crookedness here.
 Under which regime are the Greens likely to have more influence and stand a better
 chance of some of their message, and maybe even policies, getting through?
 That's a no brainer.

 Gore may be the slightly lesser of two evils, but slightly is better than nothing, right?

 As I said earlier, I tend to align myself with much of the message in the Nader platform, however running
 a presidential election is NOT the way to push that message. If Nader voters really want to install some
 Greens in public office, they should not start with the presidency, where they stand zero chance of winning,
 but rather at the level of local and congressional elections. In many small districts, it would not be
 impossible for a third party candidate to get a plurality of votes, and if the Greens targeted and campaigned
 strategically, they could likely see a handfull of Greens in the House of Representatives in the next couple
 of elections. Once the party earns some legitimacy by its presence in congress, it could continue to build up
 its base and resources, push for electoral reform, and then, down the road, *legitimately* run a candidate
 for the presidency. But putting all it's resources into a lost cause is a ridiculous waste of funds.
 And the saddest part is that instead of gaining credibility and recognition though running a candidate in
 the big race, the Green party has suffered a loss of legitimacy, a complete draining of their resources,
 and a serious blow to their morale.

 Cynthia