Mathematically Debunking Nader

I have taken it upon myself to show why it is ludicrous to vote for Nader if you are a genuine progressive in this country. Despite his ridiculous chances of winning; his acceptance of GOP money, support, and signatures in Arizona, Oregon, and Michigan; and his pathetic performance in his debate against Howard Dean to name a few indications why Ralph Nader is not a viable progressive candidate, I'm going to throw the Nader contingency every bone they've asked for and then some.

To start off, let's make a few generous assumptions about Ralph:

1. Nader is the perfect, archetypical progressive candidate (in spite of my reservations above).
2. Nader will make it onto every state's ballot (though even he doesn't expect this).

To show why voting for Nader is mind-bogglingly anti-progressive, I will calculate some very generous expected values with the above assumptions in mind. What is an expected value?
If you've ever walked into a casino or played the lottery, you have encountered expected values. As a matter of fact, it is the very expected values which make casinos and lotteries so profitable.

An expected value is simply the probability of an event occuring times the sum of the value of all the favorable outcomes. The expected value of a lottery ticket, for instance, is the probability that you win times the amount you would get if you win. Lotteries make money by raising the price of a ticket higher than the expected value of the ticket. In the long run, they will make boatloads despite occasional losses. Make sense?

To pick the best progressive candidate, it behooves us to calculate the expected progressive value of each candidate. Since George Bush clearly does not fit the criteria of a progressive candidate, we'll use him to standardize Nader and  Kerry. To express the outcome value of Kerry and Nader, I assigned each a proportion difference from George W. Bush.

Let's start by evaluating John F. Kerry. To appease all the Nader supporters here (and throw them a huge bone, as promised) I'll go along with the Nader meme that there is very little difference between Bush and Kerry (even despite the DOMA, FMA, the tax cut, healthcare, foreign policy, military service records, outsourcing, Halliburton, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Ashcroft, and the PATRIOT act to name a few differences...). For Kerry's outcome value I'll assign Kerry just a 10% difference from Bush, or .1. As you'll see by the end of this exercise, even a 1% difference would justify voting Kerry over Nader, but we'll get back to that later...

For Nader's outcome value, I'll give Ralph a difference 10 times higher than that of Kerry, or 100%, 1.0

Now we need to determine some probabilities for each candidate. What this really comes down to is the oomph of your vote; the liklihood that your vote affects the election. Of course, this varies from state to state, so I'll just focus on the states that matter; the swing-states (perhaps in a later diary I will go into the non-swing states and why it's still better to vote for Kerry).

By definition, a swing state is one in which two of the candidates are in a statistical dead-heat. Now here's the reality; Bush leads Nader by over 40 percentage points in every swing state; that correlates to millions of votes per state. The difference between Kerry and Bush in these states is just a few points (<5% and usually <3%) correlating to a few thousand, at the most 10-20 thousands votes.

Let's take things to an extreme: Let's assume that Bush is leading Nader by only 1,000,000 votes in each state (insanely generous of me, but ok) and the difference between Bush and Kerry is 20,000 votes (which is absurd since Florida and New Mexico were determined by less than 1,000 votes each in the last election). To determine the "oomph" of your vote, you simply take the inverse of the vote differential. Thus a Kerry vote has an oomph of (1/20,000) and a Nader vote has an oomph of (1/1,000,000). This is extremely, outrageously generous of me since I scaled up the Kerry differential and scaled down the Nader differential significantly. Even so: watch what happens when we calculate expected values with these unrealistically skewed inputs in favor of Nader.

The expected progressive value of a Kerry vote becomes
(0.1) * (1/20,000) = .000005

The expected progressive value of a Nader vote becomes
(1.0)*(1/1,000,000)=.000001

Thus even when we give Nader every benefit of the doubt and doubt Kerry for every benefit, a vote for Kerry contributes 5 times more to progress than a vote for Nader under our current plurality system.

QED and Game over, Nader.

Update: My back of the envelope calculation shows that, even with the unreasonable assignment of .1 to Kerry and 1.0 to Nader for their progressive outcome values, a Kerry vote is several hundred to a thousand times more progressive than a Nader vote.

•  Tip jar

  for my mathematical wizardry.

  by ARingMD2B on Tue Jul 20, 2004 at 06:22:20 PM PDT

  •  Well put

    I had thought of doing the probability/utility-theoretical analysis here a while back, but hey, there it is.

    Unfortunately, I fear the Nader supporters won't understand the argument here as to why voting for Nader is irrational. (People still play the lottery, too, soo ...)

    by soultaco on Tue Jul 20, 2004 at 07:05:05 PM PDT

    •  And go to Vegas for vacation...

      no wonder the average american is $8,000 in credit card debt

      by ARingMD2B on Tue Jul 20, 2004 at 07:06:55 PM PDT

      •  hey, I resemble that remark! :P

        But then, I don't go to Vegas to win money (not that I'd refuse it if I did). It's entertainment. The money I lose (actually, not lose, spend, since I know I'm going to lose it) gambling is the cost of that entertainment. I actually find I don't spend any more in Vegas than I do vacationing elsewhere.

        On the other hand, you're probably right about most people who go there...

        by cyclopatra on Tue Jul 20, 2004 at 07:20:51 PM PDT

        •  If you don't gamble at Vegas

          you win since everything else is so cheap.

          by ARingMD2B on Tue Jul 20, 2004 at 07:29:54 PM PDT

  •  Simpson's paradox

    Take statistics- its possible

    by ARingMD2B on Tue Jul 20, 2004 at 08:06:47 PM PDT

    •  Switch

      The chance that the prize is behind the door you picked first is 1/3 (since it was essentially a random pick, and there were three doors). That leaves a 2/3 probability that it is behind one of the other two doors. The all-seeing game show host knows to open a door that doesn't have the big prize (there will always be such a door to open). That leaves the other unpicked door, which now has a 2/3 probability of being right. The odds that you picked the right door in the first place haven't changed.

      So, the odds are twice as good if you switch. I know this is all irrelevant to the diary, but I really like this problem.

      by jd in nyc on Tue Jul 20, 2004 at 11:44:50 PM PDT

  •  but not at all relevant to this election...

    what is your point David?

    by ARingMD2B on Tue Jul 20, 2004 at 08:12:57 PM PDT

•  interesting take

  this is a much more intellectually compelling argument, IMO, than the standard "nader stole all those votes that belong to us!" whining i usually hear bandied about.

  we're rolling back the republican crime wave

  by zeke L on Tue Jul 20, 2004 at 06:34:50 PM PDT

  •  Which is why

    we need entirely more mathematicians in office :-p

    by ARingMD2B on Tue Jul 20, 2004 at 06:35:57 PM PDT

    •  no argument there!

      does that mean you're gonna run in a few years?

      of course, there's always the example of adlai stevenson to consider.  you know this story? when an enthusiastic supporter told him "mr stevenson, you've got the vote of every thinking person in america" he famously replied, "yes, but i need a majority."  of course there was also the fact that mccarthy viciously attacked him as being a communist and later implied he was a homosexual to boot, all with even less basis in reality than usual for mccarthy. eisenhower of course won handily.

      we're rolling back the republican crime wave

      by zeke L on Tue Jul 20, 2004 at 06:42:42 PM PDT

      •  Yeah I'll run in 22 years

        You have to be 40 right? I have heard the quote before- I just told my friend that the other day when he asked me how Bush can poll over 40%. Now give me some mojo- I want my TU status back. ;)

        by ARingMD2B on Tue Jul 20, 2004 at 06:45:13 PM PDT

        •  40? Maybe you're not so good with

          the easy numbers...You have to be 35 to be president of the US, but most people don't start there. I think Michael Moore was elected to the school committee in Flint MI when he was about your age...

          by Alice in Florida on Tue Jul 20, 2004 at 06:48:51 PM PDT

          •  His platform:

            fire the principal and vice principal.

            I don't want to be school board chair though; I only want to be president: not governor, not senator, just president.

            by ARingMD2B on Tue Jul 20, 2004 at 06:51:52 PM PDT

•  expected value in 2000

  The interesting thing about 2000 is that most Nader voters, I think, had a different goal in mind: getting 5% votes. This would complicate your formulas, since there would be some political benefit (arguably) to crossing that 5% threshold, but it would obviously be different that the benefit of actually winning an election.

  But the 5% threshold was very much in the air in 2000, and lent the Nader candidacy more of a strategic basis, less of a purely Quixotic one.

  Of course, the Nader campaign failed to get near to the 5% -- and I've always thought that the utter failure of Nader in 2000 wasn't just about costing Gore the election but, perhaps more significantly, failing at his own stated goal of 5%.

  More significantly, there is no talk of 5% or anything like it this year around -- no micro-goal that would perhaps mess with "expected values" calculations that you do above (and which are a little over my under-mathematical head!)

  by awol on Tue Jul 20, 2004 at 06:49:36 PM PDT

  •  Electoral College

    Plus, you're assuming that the Bush-Kerry vote totals will be close.  

    In 2000, I lived in an excruciatingly red state -- one where Bush was polling so heavily over Gore, that even if all the Nader, Brown, Buchanan, Hagelin, etc. votes had gone to Gore, Bush would have still won the state.  

    Armed with that information, I felt:

    • No way would I vote for Bush.  Duh!
    • My vote for Gore would have an expected value of, well, zero.  
    • My vote for Nader might help him get to 5%, providing credibility and funding for the Green Party in the US.  

    Your argument doesn't hold up under those circumstances.  On the other hand, 2004 is different:  I now live in a near-battleground state.  And even if I didn't, Nader certainly doesn't rate a 1.0 on the progressive scale as an independent.

    by osterizer on Tue Jul 20, 2004 at 08:22:56 PM PDT

•  Nader is the only candidate adressing taboo issues

  and he is really getting air time to do so, thereby educating the American public win or lose. no other candidate is talking about corporate crime. http://www.votenader.org/issues/index.php?cid=6

  Kerry's stance on the Middle East and Venezuela have been at times, to the right of Bush: no progressive value.

  And if you are not talking about corporate crime, you are not a progressive and have zero progressive value

  0 * any number = 0

  Kerry and Bush have zero progressive value

  QED

  see: http://www.commondreams.org/views04/0715-06.htm

  by oldfish on Tue Jul 20, 2004 at 06:49:43 PM PDT

  •  Ummm

    Kerry has talked about corporate crime....

    by jfern on Tue Jul 20, 2004 at 06:52:31 PM PDT

  •  Two things:

    First of all, just because Kerry "doesn't take a stand on taboo issues" (which he has), that doesn't mean he has no progressive value, which we defined as the proportion difference from Bush. Thus you rightly pointed out that Bush has no progressive value since Bush is himself. There are huge, progressive differences between Kerry and Bush however, and if you don't want to acknowledge them, that's your own myopia.

    Second, zero times any number is not always 0. Take math beyond algebra and maybe you would know that...

    QED for me

    by ARingMD2B on Tue Jul 20, 2004 at 06:58:20 PM PDT

  •  Zero progressive value? Puh-leeze.

    If you seriously think that George Bush and John Kerry have exactly the same platform, you're not paying attention. ARingMD2B here has presented a good argument as to why even the slightest improvement in Kerry's platform over Bush's justifies a Kerry vote instead of a Nader vote.

    by soultaco on Tue Jul 20, 2004 at 07:07:26 PM PDT

  •  Corporate Crime

    Ten seconds of research was enough to discover this on Kerry's website:

    He isn't afraid to crack down on corporations that are hiding their money in Bermuda to avoid paying their fair share and will end special tax giveaways to companies that ship jobs abroad. And he will defend the rights of workers, consumers and shareholders in holding corporations accountable for their actions.

    Our economy does well when our workers are doing well. Today, Americans who are working hard and playing by the rules are faced with higher health care costs, higher state taxes, higher college tuition and limited job opportunities. At the same time, many corporations are bending the rules and shirking their fair share of the burden - and the Bush Administration is rewarding those who break the rules with lucrative government contracts. Kerry will fight for a government that rewards those who work hard and play by the rules and challenges those who don't. He will restore investor confidence with strong enforcement by the Securities and Exchange Commission and he will stop corporations from keeping bank Accounts in Countries like Bermuda to Avoid Paying Taxes.

    Ten more seconds on Google uncovered this:

    BOSTON, Dec. 11 -- Senator John Kerry said on Thursday that he would crack down on abuses in the mutual fund industry if elected president and called for expanding the antiracketeering laws to fight a "new age of organized crime that comes from corporate offices."

    Speaking at Northeastern University, Mr. Kerry, a Massachusetts Democrat, said he would end the rapid-fire, quick-turnaround trades known as market timing, in which fund managers and big investors have been allowed to profit at the expense of long-term shareholders.

    ...

    Mr. Kerry spoke in the home city of Putnam Investments, which in October became the first mutual fund sued by state and federal securities regulators for civil fraud. Since then lawmakers in Congress have begun to call for significant changes in regulating the industry. Mr. Kerry said he would ban fund managers from market-timing trades; require that each fund prospectus disclose its policies on market timing, and enact criminal penalties for funds that violate those policies.

    He also vowed to put a stop to late trading, in which favored investors have been allowed to make after-hours trades at that day's prices -- and thus to profit illegally from news reports that follow the close of trading -- by requiring that mutual fund companies actually receive orders before the day's price is set.

    ...

    Mr. Kerry's other proposals included creating an independent Mutual Fund Oversight Board to root out corruption and fraud. He would require that at least three out of four fund directors and all chairmen be independent. He would make funds disclose the precise dollar amounts of all regular fees, and any costs that reduce fund asset values. And he would require that fund directors report any relationships with companies that get fee contracts.

    ...

    Mr. Kerry said he would expand the Racketeering Influenced and Corrupt Organizations law in order take to take on corporate conspiracies the same way that prosecutors have fought mobsters for years.

    And I suspect that more thorough research would uncover more statements like this.  Criticize Kerry all you want, but don't try to tell me that he's said nothing about corporate crime.

    by dtj on Tue Jul 20, 2004 at 07:22:33 PM PDT

    •  Nader v. Kerry on corporate crime

      Kerry: end special tax giveaways to companies that ship jobs abroad

      Nader: Twelve Steps to an Effective Crackdown on Corporate Crime

      1. Increase Corporate Crime Prosecution Budgets: The Department of Justice's corporate crime division and the Securities and Exchange Commission have been chronically under funded and therefore do not have sufficient resources to combat the corporate crime wave in the United States. This results in inadequate investigation, settlement of cases for weak fines and ignoring many corporate crime violators completely. There needs to be a strong corporate law and order will in the White House.
      2. Ban Corporate Criminals from Government Contracts: The US should enact a tough, serious debarment statute that would deny federal business to serious and/or repeat corporate lawbreakers. The federal government spends $265 billion annually on goods and services. These contracts should not support corporate criminals. These standards should also apply to procurement contracts in Iraq.
      3. Crack Down on Corporate Tax Avoidance: The US should punish corporate tax escapees by closing the offshore reincorporation loophole and banning government contracts and subsidies for companies that relocate their headquarters to an offshore tax haven. The IRS should be given more power and more budgetary resources to go after corporate tax avoiders. Publicly-traded corporations should be required to make their tax returns public.
      4. Democratize Corporate Governance: Shareholders should be granted the right to democratically nominate and elect the corporate board of directors by opening up proxy access to minority shareholders and introducing cumulative voting and competitive elections. Shareholders should be given the power to approve all major business decisions, including top executive compensation. Shareholders should be treated as the owners of the corporation - since, in fact, that is what they are.
      5. Expand Corporate Disclosure: Corporate sunshine laws should be enacted that require corporations to provide better information about their records on the environment, human rights, worker safety, and taxes, as well as their criminal and civil litigation records.
      6. Rein in Excessive Executive Pay: Shareholder authorization should be required for top executive compensation packages at each annual shareholder meeting. Stock options, which now account for about half of the executive compensation, should be counted on financial statements as an expense (which they are). Tax deductions for compensation 25 times above the compensation received by the lowest paid worker in a corporation should be eliminated, as recommended by business guru Peter Drucker.
      7. Fix the Pension System: Corporations must be held more responsible for the retirement security of their employees. At a minimum we need to give workers a voice on the pension board; not require workers to stuff their 401(k) plans with company stock; and give workers the right to control their 401(k) plans. In addition, an Office of Participant Advocacy should be created in the Department of Labor to monitor pension plans.
      8. Restore the Rights of Defrauded Investors: Repeal the self-styled securities reform laws that block defrauded investors from seeking private restitution, such as the private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995, which allowed the aiders and abettors of massive corporate crime (e.g., accountants, lawyers, and bankers) to escape civil liability.
      9. Regulate Derivatives Trading: All over-the-counter financial instruments, including derivatives, should be subjected to the same or equivalent audit and reporting requirements as other financial instruments traded on stock exchanges. Rules should be enacted regarding collateral-margin, reporting and dealer licensing in order to maintain regulatory parity and ensure that markets are transparent and problems can be detected before they become a crisis.
      10. End Conflicts of Interest on Wall Street: Enact structural reforms that separate commercial and investment banking services and prevent other costly, documented conflicts of interest among financial entities, such as those that have dominated big banks and security firms in recent years.
      11. Track the Extent and Cost of Corporate Crime: The Department of Justice should establish an online corporate crime database. Also, just as the FBI issues an annual street crime report, "Crime in the United States," it should also publish an annual report on corporate and white collar crime with recommendations.
      12. Foster a National Discussion on Corporate Power: Establish a Congressional Commission on Corporate Power to explore various legal and economic proposals that would rein in unaccountable giant corporations. The Commission should seek ways to improve upon the current state corporate chartering system in a world of global corporations and propose ways to correct the inequitable legal status of corporations as "persons." The Commission would be led by congressionally-appointed experts on corporate and constitutional law, and should hold citizen hearings in at least ten cities followed by a report and recommendations.

      http://www.votenader.org/issues/index.php?cid=31

      by oldfish on Tue Jul 20, 2004 at 07:38:48 PM PDT

      •  Irrelevant:

        fighting corporate crime is not the only measure of progress.

        by ARingMD2B on Tue Jul 20, 2004 at 07:43:42 PM PDT

      •  Ahem

        Okay, now this time around, try reading everything I linked to above, instead of ten words of it.  And maybe try doing some research into Kerry's positions yourself, instead of relying on Kos commenters to do it for you.

        by dtj on Tue Jul 20, 2004 at 07:46:26 PM PDT

  •  Well, not zero ...

    Even I can admit that there is a slight difference between Bush and Kerry. Kerry is better on abortion. Kerry is better on the environment, although he reportedly told Hoffa that he would support more drilling in Alaska. On other issues, like campaign finance reform and foreign policy, Kerry is only slightly better than Bush. On a slew of issues, there are exactly the same with Kerry changing his mind in the last year or so and running against his 20 year senate record.  

    by politizine on Tue Jul 20, 2004 at 08:24:20 PM PDT

    •  3 big differences between Kerry and Bush

      1. Cheney 2. Ashcroft 3. Rumsfeld

      by ARingMD2B on Tue Jul 20, 2004 at 08:50:23 PM PDT

      •  big differences between Bush and Kerry

        1. Cheney 2. Ashcroft

        is all you need to say.

        Much more convincing than your mathematical wizardry.

        by oldfish on Tue Jul 20, 2004 at 09:07:35 PM PDT

    •  Good Morning To You, Mr. Marginal!

      You actually posted something that made sense.  You've been rewarded accordingly.

      "L'enfer, c'est le GOP!" - JJB, from an idea by oratorio

      by JJB on Thu Jul 22, 2004 at 10:42:46 AM PDT

•  The other thing

  is that Nader invests in mutual funds that hold shares in some of America's best corporate citizens: Wal-Mart, Altria Group, Clear Channel Communications, Microsoft, and Exxon-Mobil. That should shatter one of the "progressive" myths about Nader.

  by jiacinto on Tue Jul 20, 2004 at 07:46:42 PM PDT

  •  Microsoft doesn't belong in this list

    Wal-Mart is destroying small town America. Clear Channel dominates radio with the same bland product everywhere, and funds right wing political causes. Exxon-Mobil is a nasty oil company, destroying the Earth for fun and profit. Altria (owner of Philip Morris) produces a product that kills if used as intended.

    Microsoft makes software that most of us use to access DailyKos. Microsoft makes the software most of us use to send e-mail and letters to Congress. Microsoft's products haven't killed or hurt anyone, are pretty much non-polluting, empower small businesses and individuals to do things that would have been prohibitively expensive or impossible without Microsoft software, and provides a way for many people to access information they would not otherwise get.

    Microsoft treats its employees better than most companies, too. Though there are no unions active, that's mostly because until recently there has been little need for them. Pay is competitive. Health benefits are unbeatable. Gay and lesbian employees have full domestic partnership benefits.

    Are they perfect? No. Have they been brutal to their competitors? Sure. Is the whining of Microsoft haters justified? 90% of the time, no way.

    I get really sick of this smearing of a company that, while it is definitely a huge corporation subject to the institutional problems of any corporation, is much better than most. In corporate terms, Microsoft is progressive, and Nader should only be embarrassed about holding their stock because he engaged in the same knee-jerk Microsoft hatred that is so common among otherwise thinking people.

    by seaprog on Wed Jul 21, 2004 at 03:05:41 PM PDT

    •  I have no problem with Micorsoft

      But Nader does probably.

      by jiacinto on Wed Jul 21, 2004 at 07:25:14 PM PDT

•  I know why people vote for Nader:

  they don't understand probabilities and expected values. I just used reason and math to debunk Nader as a progressive candidate, that's more than any Nader supporter can do to justify their vote.

  by ARingMD2B on Tue Jul 20, 2004 at 08:01:38 PM PDT

  •  If you're trying to relate this to the 2000

    election, the comparison is weak. Enough games, just come out and say what you want to.

    by ARingMD2B on Tue Jul 20, 2004 at 08:16:51 PM PDT

    •  gee, now I'm curious why I might vote for Nader

      I'm still sampling the apple pie, don't do drugs and don't think it matters which door i open. How am I doing? Where are the answers? You will post tomorrow? Are you going to give hints? Please give me some time to think the puzzles over.

      by oldfish on Tue Jul 20, 2004 at 08:34:47 PM PDT

    •  No , it's more like they're innumerate

      Congratulations on your math degrees-- I've only taken Calculus BC and Introductory Statistics so I'm not about to challenge you with respect to these "probability puzzlers." However, I realize that many people feel they should vote for Nader because they think there is no difference between the two parties. That sort of thinking is cynical and wrong. There is a difference, though many of us would like it to be greater.

      It's like this:
      you have $1 to buy a lottery ticket and there are two different tickets you can buy.

      With the first ticket you can buy you have a 50% chance to win $10.
      With the second ticket you can buy you have a one in a million chance to win $20.

      Now tell me, which ticket is the better buy? Sure I like the idea of winning $20 more, but the chance that I win it makes the first ticket a much better buy.

      by ARingMD2B on Tue Jul 20, 2004 at 08:35:58 PM PDT

      •  Why people might vote for Nader

        "I realize that many people feel they should vote for Nader because they think there is no difference between the two parties."

        Sorry, that's much too simplistic.

        See http://www.petitiononline.com/mod_perl/signed.cgi?glfn&1

        for some reasons people might vote for Nader

        by oldfish on Tue Jul 20, 2004 at 08:42:33 PM PDT

        •  Petition is more of the same

          It bashes the Democrats, and says that we should give Nader attention because he's the alternative.  It's focused on the importance of getting his ideas out there, not winning the presidency.  It doesn't explain how he can win, or what the consequences will be if he doesn't.  

          There are other ways of getting important messages out than running a campaign every four years.  Nader ran hard against Gore in 2000, and then did basically nothing for four years.  Compare what Nader did after he lost with what Howard Dean is doing.  Who is more likely to achieve real progressive change?

          by dtj on Tue Jul 20, 2004 at 08:55:08 PM PDT

      •  I was actually going to talk about

        how one election can affect another in another diary about nader expected values in non-swings states. If anything, this is another reason NOT to vote for Nader; by running in 1996, Nader got more support in 2000, ultimately costing Gore the election. Of course, I think this will probably reduce Nader's support this year (if anything we can see that it already has- he didn't even get the Green nomination).

        I won't argue that most people's "probablity figures" are not optimal and they vote on emotions, not reason. This is largely the reason that a demagogue won the 2000 election.

        by ARingMD2B on Tue Jul 20, 2004 at 09:26:43 PM PDT

    •  Why would people vote for Nader? - My guesses

      1. They think that Kerry and Bush are the same.
      2. They'd rather feel like they casted a "pure" vote than defeat Bush, because they don't think things will be that bad if Bush wins.
      3. They are hoping that Bush wins because they think that this will ultimately cause a progressive backlash.  
      4. They like Nader, and they live in a safe state so they know it doesn't matter.

      Am I leaving anything out?

      Note that I don't consider these to be good reasons.  #1 is just inaccurate, unless you only care about one issue and Kerry and Bush happen to agree on it.  But many Nader supporters claim that they're the same across the board, which is easily proven false.  #2 depends on your personal feelings, I guess, but I simply have a hard time respecting someone who really doesn't care if Bush wins.  #3 is almost certainly inaccurate; I've never heard anyone make a convincing case that this will happen, and even Noam Chomsky recently said that it's a stupid theory.  That leaves #4, which may be an acceptable reason, but I still don't know why you would reward Nader with your vote instead of Cobb, who is actually trying to build a party instead of running as an independent.

      Anyway, you've been dangling the "I know why people would vote for Nader, do you?" question in front of us for several posts now.  What's your theory?

      by dtj on Tue Jul 20, 2004 at 08:40:17 PM PDT

      •  okay, here's the ooomph: reasons to vote for Nader

        Chomsky and Zinn Plan to Vote for Nader in the 'Safe-State' of Massachusetts According to New Book: "Ralph's Revolt"
        In a newly released book, author Greg Bates reveals that noted linguist, author and political analyst Noam Chomsky and historian Howard Zinn, author of A People's History of the United States, have both decided to vote for independent presidential candidate Ralph Nader this November since they live in the safe-state of Massachusetts.

        The book, Ralph's Revolt: The Case for Joining Nader's Rebellion highlights the views of the two celebrated residents from Kerry's home state. Elsewhere, Zinn has argued that Nader's campaign "is a vital element in keeping alive the public debate about the Iraq War." He notes that Senator Kerry has been reluctant to engage in this debate and has supported President Bush's Iraq policies.

        The book, dedicated to the staff and volunteers of the Nader-Camejo Campaign, also highlights the importance of Nader being on the ballot in the battleground states that could determine the elections outcome. Bates argues the strategy is important to the long-term influence or leverage on the Democrats. Otherwise there will be no pull by voters in the progressive direction, while 24 hours a day corporate interests are pulling Kerry the other way toward more plutocracy and less democracy. As Bates says: "It's demeaning, as a swing state voter, to hear others imply by their advocacy for running in safe states only, that I shouldn't have the choice. Step one in any democracy is to treat all voters as thinking people who can be argued with, not cut off their choices."

        Ralph's Revolt notes the cumulative impact of "lesser evil voting" - making the Democratic Party more evil and less powerful. It also highlights the insecurity of the Democrats and their deplorable efforts to keep the Nader-Camejo Campaign off the ballot and block voter choice. Bates describes this as an ominous sign that is a stand against democratic process and urges the rise of a people-based third party to take back our country.

        http://www.votenader.org/media_press/index.php?cid=86
        

        by oldfish on Tue Jul 20, 2004 at 08:49:55 PM PDT

        •  Your reasons

          How amusing.  You (or actually Nader's site) invoke Chomsky and Zinn to promote a book that advocates voting for Nader in a swing state.  But Chomsky and Zinn, as even this excerpt admits, have emphasized that they would not be voting for Nader if they didn't live in a safe state.  The impressive-sounding authorities that give the appearance of support for your argument actually undercut it.  (See here for more.)  

          Anyway, the remaining arguments are based on the usual stuff--that voting for Nader will pull the Democratic Party in a more progressive direction.  I again refer you to Chomsky for a refutation of this theory.  Furthermore, we actually had a test of this theory, the 2000 election between Bush and Gore.  Nader went on about how running against Gore would pull the party in a more progressive direction.  Well, here we are in 2004 and he's running again, which means that his plan didn't work.  And, of course, the cost of Nader's little experiment has been everything we've experienced during four years of Bush.  

          I have to go soon, but I'll leave you with these words from Billmon, one of the best bloggers out there and clearly no blind worshipper of Kerry or the Democrats.  Here's what he has to say:

          Some ultra-left purists apparently prefer an impotent anger to the inevitable compromises and disappointments of working through, and sometimes in, the Democratic Party. Others wrap their third-party hopes in dreams of proportional representation, or instant runoff voting, or some other procedural deus ex machina that will deliver them from political irrelevancy.

          To the former group, I've nothing left to say. I've walked your path and I've seen where it leads - to the graveyard of lost causes. I'm too old now to strike poses, and too angry to wallow in my own helplessness. I don't just want to fight, I want to win -- not simply for the sake of winning (this isn't a soccer game) but to turn the tide, to start pushing the conservatives back, after all these long years of being on the defensive. And the only way I know how to do that is to create a political coalition broad enough, and strong enough, to beat the Republican machine. If you won't help, then you are irrelevant to me. I don't give a damn what you do or who you vote for.

          To the latter - to those who still cling to electoral reform as the road to a third party promised land - I would submit that the Popular Front [i.e. a progressive movement within the Democratic party] is your only hope of reaching Zion. As it is, you're caught in a logical trap: Without a viable third party to provide the political muscle, the existing Republicrat duopoly will never allow electoral reform. But without electoral reform, a third party will never be viable in this country. The duopoly owns both the chicken and the egg.

          An independent progressive movement, on the other hand, might be able to use the Democratic Party label to gain strength and visibility - much as certain types of jungle trees gain access to sunlight by growing up the trunks of older, more established trees. Eventually, the movement might be strong enough to demand, and get, electoral reforms.

          Think about it.  Few people are saying that a vote for Kerry is the perfect option.  But a vote for Nader won't get us anywhere, and we have the precedent of 2000 to back it up.  

          By the way, if and when you do respond to this, I'd appreciate it if you could use your own arguments and respond directly to my points.  You've been leaning heavily on generic cut-and-pasted arguments from other sites to make your arguments for you.  I have no objection to cutting and pasting within reasonable limits (obviously, I've done it quite a bit myself), but after a while it can become a substitute for real argument and thought.

          by dtj on Tue Jul 20, 2004 at 09:25:29 PM PDT

          •  Kucinich, Cobb, Kerry, or Nader: which approach?

            Well its unclear.

            Kucinich realizes how difficult it is to work for progressive change within the Democratic party and he's not getting much press.

            "I'm going to keep working within the Democratic Party. Again, it is not that easy to do, as we saw in Miami."

            http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=04/07/14/1410234&mode=thread&tid=25

            Cobb is trying to build a party but not getting much press.

            Nader is getting much more press than Kucinich or Cobb but recognizes he is an underdog with some leverage.

            Kerry is the choice of the party but his positions aren't "progressive" by my definition of the word.

            I think all of these players have an important role to play. Kerry must win the election. Cobb must build his party. Kucinich must wake up the Democrats to his progressive agenda and Nader must continue to educate people on issues of corporate crime, foreign policy & other issues in a much more educational manner than Kerry will do so as a candidate. Kucinich and Nader share a lot of ideas but as the cards were dealt, Nader is getting the press not Kucinich, so it makes sense for Nader to use his opportunities to educate the public.

            Its unclear whether the Kucinich approach of working within the party or the Cobb approach of building a third party will succeed. Nader's efforts to educate the public in a presidential campaign have also proved convincing as he risks discussing taboo subjects in detail.

            Its possible that the combined efforts of Kerry/Edwards/Nader/Bush/Cobb/Moore etc. have already paid off as Kerry appears to have pulled into a lead even before the DNC.

            I respect all of these different approaches.

            The Democrats have a choice. They can continue to smear Nader and raise procedural technicalities to his getting on the ballot. If they are successful in their smear campaign, they will significantly reduce the Nader vote, but at a great cost to democracy. If the Democrats are not successful in smearing Nader, the Democrats might lose the election and they will only have themselves to blame. I think it better for the Democrats to take the high road and negotiate with Nader. If Nader is taking more Dem. votes than Rep. ones its b/c Dems are more attracted to his positions on issues (for all sorts of different reasons.) Its time for Dems to take the high road in dealing with Nader. Gore lost in part perhaps because he refused to meet with Nader and take him seriously.

            Nader has leverage because he is saying things Democrats want to hear that Kerry isn't saying. Either Kerry needs to talk more like Nader or the Democrats have to find another way to let Nader save face by cashing in on his leverage. The Democrats have refused to cede an inch to Kucinich in the Democratic platform, so its unclear they would be willing to make any concessions to Nader. But the Democrats already made the mistake of ignoring Nader.

            Ultimately, Nader predicted the election will swing one way or the other, regardless of his being on the ballot. He may be right. And it looks like the election is swinging in the direction of Kerry. People are fed up with Bush.

            By the way, the Democrats like to blame Nader but the Democrats refuse to look at their own disenfranchisement of the African-American vote.

            http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=04/05/04/1420202&mode=thread&tid=25

            by oldfish on Tue Jul 20, 2004 at 10:48:15 PM PDT

            •  Well

              So what you're saying is that "Kerry must win," but Nader must get his message out.  But Nader's chosen method of getting his message out is to campaign in swing states and take Republican money to get on the ballots in those states.  Do you really think that this is the best method?  Is there no better way of getting a message to the people?  Couldn't Nader run a national campaign, focusing mainly on safe states, and get his message out that way?  Or couldn't he attract attention the old fashioned way--running ads, giving speeches, lobbying, but NOT within the context of an election.  Why the obsessive focus on challenging Kerry in the states in which he is most at risk?  

              I still don't know what is to be gained from "negotiating" with Nader.  Kerry already met with him, and obviously this didn't affect Ralph's "Bush and Kerry are the same" line.  If Nader wants to negotiate, he should make it clear what he wants.  Have him say, "if the Democrats do X, Y, and Z," I'll be satisfied enough to drop out of the race.  As it is, I doubt that he'll be satisfied with anything less than total "purity"--the conversion of the Democratic platform to look exactly like the Nader platform.  The overall thrust of his rhetoric is that a third-party alternative is an absolute necessity, so I have a hard time believing that a few face-saving concessions will make him drop out.  

              As for the stuff about "smearing" Nader by requiring him to follow the law to get on the ballot, I don't have much sympathy for your argument.  Nobody has a "right" to be on a ballot.  There are certain hurdles that you have to jump over before you can get there.  You can argue over whether we should change the procedure, but you can't argue that Nader should be exempt just because he's Nader.  And I also think it's completely justified to point out the fact that Nader is heavily supported by Republicans.  That's not a "smear"; it's a fact, and if it makes Nader look like a pawn of the right or a hypocrite, well, maybe it should.  

              And what about Kucinich and Cobb?  If Nader would join forces with Cobb to focus exclusively on winning a large chunk of the vote in safe states, maybe they'd get their magic 5% without putting Kerry's election at serious risk.  Personally, I don't think this is likely this year, but there's a better chance of achieving it with a unified Green front than through an independent campaign with a swing-state focus.  Kucinich is being ignored by his party now, in large part because the nomination period is effectively over.  But if you want a model for how to work effectively for progressive causes within the Democratic Party, you need only look at Howard Dean.  Dean's campaign, and his subsequent efforts to work for progressive causes within the party, are far more likely to push the party in a progressive direction than Nader's strategy of "run for president, do nothing for four years, and then run again saying that this time, your campaign will make a positive difference."

              In the end, we don't even disagree on the key issue, that Kerry must win the election.  We disagree on whether Nader is playing a valuable role with his focus on swing states.  As I discussed above, the 2000 campaign allowed us to test the theory that Nader's swing-state strategy would push the country in a more progressive direction.  I think it's clear that this didn't work.  Having a conservative president is the best way to push this country to the right, and I don't even want to think about what the national mood will be in 2008 if liberal/progressive hopes are dashed this year, and we get four more years of Bush.  The first step is to win; the next step is to consolidate our victory into something more lasting.  As far as I can tell, Nader doesn't give a damn about who wins in 2004 as long as he can give a few speeches bashing the Democrats.  His chosen method of "educating" the people, which is largely preaching to the choir anyway, is probably the worst means of "education" possible, inasmuch as the lesson seems to be that voting third-party gets you a conservative president.  Let's drop all the rhetoric about how mean the Democrats are in their attempts to "smear" Nader, and how the Democrats have a moral obligation to enter into some kind of futile "negotiations" with Nader.  The only real question is whether Nader's strategy will leave the country better or worse off.  You know my answer, and the reasons for it.

              by dtj on Wed Jul 21, 2004 at 05:56:02 AM PDT

        •  Now we're seeing eye to eye

          I would vote for Nader if the election weren't so damn close.

          by ARingMD2B on Tue Jul 20, 2004 at 09:28:28 PM PDT

  •  I'll have the pecan pie ...

    Or whatever Ralph's mom used to make. :-)

    by politizine on Tue Jul 20, 2004 at 08:20:25 PM PDT