I've written about my Social Proof project before. This is an effort to assert political truths, using arguments that we've seen here on dailykos and elsewhere. They're not Proofs in the true sense of the word, because rather than relying on scientific fact, they rely on logic and avoiding absurd arguments.
I've given a good try at socially proving that Nader should not run for President. I can't reproduce the entire argument here because it depends on some wiki/weblog software I wrote, but you can review the entire proof here.
In summary, it relies on the following assertions:
- Nader does not have a shot at winning democratically in 2004
- The spoiler effect undermines democratic intent, defined as the candidate that the population prefers overall
- Nader fits the definition of a spoiler candidate
- Nader's run does not protect democratic intent, but undermines it
- Democratic intent must be protected
So my own personal conclusion is that any argument supporting Nader's run is either delusional (thinking he can win several states outright), or undemocratic.
(That isn't to say that I think the undemocratic arguments are bad - I'm one to believe that a liberal minority probably does know damn well what is best for America, better than the majority. But it doesn't change the fact that it is undemocratic.. and a minority group seeking to assert an election result onto a majority is, in principle, a bad bad thing for America.)
As before, I'm seeking new arguments in opposition to mine that I haven't thought of yet, to incorporate into the proof. Kind of like how scientists test their hypotheses by trying to break them. I'll argue points in response if I think the proof already handles them.