The Orbis

In 2000, Ralph Nader made headlines by running for president and allegedly spoiling the election for Al Gore. Four years later, he's running again, but you wouldn't know it from the media. Without the support of the Green Party and under constant attack from his political opponents, Nader has single-handedly waged a campaign not only for the Oval Office, but also for American democracy as we thought we knew it.

As an independent candidate for office, Nader has had to gather and submit thousands of signatures in each individual state for ballot access. For several months now, he and his supporters have reignited the grassroots spirit of American politics, gaining ballot access in about half the states and still battling it out in court in several others. But at Ralph's every move, his opponents, particularly Democrats, have tried to thwart his efforts.

After gathering over 20,000 signatures in Arizona, Nader was muscled out of that state by Democrats who feared he might steal votes from Kerry. Not only was this action a mockery of democracy, but the very rhetoric the Democrats employ is nonsensical: Nader has never "stolen" a vote from anyone because no candidate is entitled to votes to begin with. Furthermore, in 2000, only 38% of those who voted for Nader said they would otherwise have voted Democrat, as compared to 25% who would have voted Republican and the remaining 37% who may not have voted at all.

And this is precisely the reason Ralph Nader is so vital to democracy in the United States: he represents a new, fresh option and, given ballot access and media attention, could really galvanize so many disaffected voters, particularly younger ones. As it stands, both major parties are running campaigns of fear: the Republicans tell us to fear terrorists, and the Democrats tell us to fear Republicans. In effect, too many voters will choose one or the other on the basis of fear rather than examining the real issues at hand. Nader, on the other hand, encourages the electorate to vote according to their consciences and, coincidentally, seems to be the only candidate acting on his.

After all, Bush and Kerry are both so concerned with Iraq that they de-emphasize domestic issues. Nader has always championed the rights of the people, and he is the only candidate who favors speedy withdrawal from Iraq; both Bush and Kerry would keep our military there for at least the next four years. From a progressive standpoint, Nader offers a much more convincing platform than Kerry, and no progressive should cast a vote for the latter simply because "he's better than Bush."

Realistically, Ralph Nader's chances of winning the election in November are slim, but that doesn't mean a vote for him is in any way wasted. On the contrary, the only wasted vote is one that is not well thought out. In fact, a vote for Nader may actually speak louder than a vote for either of the other two major candidates because it communicates that neither of the two major parties is representing our interests, particularly the Democrats, who have traditionally defended progressive ideals. Also, third parties have a rich history of changing the course of American politics, functioning as just such an alarm to the two major parties. The more support Nader gets in this election, the more Democrats will have to take notice and amend their policies to appease progressive voters.

Ralph Nader's presidential campaign perfectly summarizes the state of democracy in 2004: a predominantly grassroots effort finally overcomes the obstacles to ballot access only to be shut out (most likely) by the anachronistic electoral college and two candidates with relatively huge, corporate-funded budgets. And what if Bush and Kerry had to spend the majority of their campaigns petitioning for ballot access in every state? Nader has shed light on the ills of our political process, and the fact that he has surmounted these ills and persists in the face of certain failure is evidence enough of his character. Add a solid platform and a sincere belief in democracy and the American people, and Nader seems the obvious choice for progressives in this election; a vote for Nader is a victory for democracy.

Article Tools