(( Originally posted to <a href="http://yro.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=98009&cid=8377042">slashdot.org</a> )) 


<I>Naderites will break the Democratic party completely.</i><P>
No. It's the electoral system that's broken, and the Democrats are finally suffering from that breakage.
<P>

<I>
It might work in a parliamentary democracy, but in the US it will lead to one party getting in power forever. Stagnation is never good, I can tell you that like someone who lived in Soviet Union</i><P>
If Nader keeps running at the Federal level, it will force the Democrats who control state legislatures to change the way that the vote distributes electors  to vote for the president (can't remember the term exactly -- I'm a Canadian).
<P>
The problem isn't that Nader is running. The problem is that the US has an electoral system where, if you're not happy with what the top two parties are doing, you have two choices about how to waste your vote:
<ul><li>
You can either vote with your conscience, knowing that there's no way in h*ll that your choice will win, or 
<li>You can vote for the lesser of the two evils, in hopes of preventing the greater evil from getting in.
</ul>
In either case, your <b>real</b> intent is never registered
<P>
The current winner-take-all approach to delegates only really makes sense in a one  party system. It's barely workable in a two party system. If somebody like Nader doesn't force the question about the brokenness of the current system, then you'll continue to have the same broken system forever.
<br>(see my sig)
<br>--<br>
Don't think that a small group of dedicated individuals can't change the world. Indeed, it's the only thing that ever has. 
<BR>
$Date: 2004/02/24 20:10:57 $ GMT