Prev Next
Featured Quizzes
Politix Daily Headlines
Featured Debates
Issues

See all 19 issues

Ralph Nader Explains What a 3rd Party Candidate Needs to Win

Hint: it's all about the benjamins

Next>

by PolitixMarg

Politix Staff Writer

Image: AP

Ralph Nader, a man who caused just as much controversy in the 2000 election as hanging chads, spoke candidly last night about Congress and the state of America in Washington, DC.

When asked what it would take for a third party candidate to win some polls in the 2016 presidential election, the crowd of interns gasped at his answer:
A billion dollars and 100,000 people working for the party fulltime. I don't even think there are 100 people working for the Green Party fulltime.
See below for more musings from Nader.
Like this article? B Vote Up
?

Is America ready to abandon the two-party system and pour money and resources into a third party candidate?

5 Comments (view in Forum)

  • ir0nw0lfe
    !
    No. Not now, not ever.Coalition govts are even more bogged by infighting than the US . Sometimes you need a score card to know who the players are. More parties, more political maneuvering, less work actually getting as everyone vies for the credit while shifting the blame. Ask our military how well coalition battle planning works during a crisis. American public needs to be careful what it wishes.
  • CommonSense
    !
    Yes.
    The current system's effects go beyond being biased towards an elite few, this bias trickles down into our political culture.
    Why is it that based on someone's position on abortion I can usually guess their position on gun control? Or from their position on universal health care I can guess their position on environmental regulations? Or gay rights and defense spending?
    Because the 2-party system effectively forces the lumping of issues that have no logical connection other than that they all tend to be favored by either Democrats or Republicans. In a multi-party system you would still get things done. It's not like every party would have a completely different stance on every issue from each other. There would be plenty of overlap in stances that would amount to majorities on any given issue. You might have a party that is pro-life but otherwise liberal, a party that is in favor of universal health care but is otherwise conservative even on economic issues wanting to seriously cut back on welfare.
    No longer would people feel pressured to belong to a "camp" and adopt carte blanche every position affiliated with either "liberal" or "conservative". This has lead to the mentality that politics is like a football game, and is leading to more and more polarization. If we adopt a preferential voting system and rank the candidates that will allow for broader participation, giving moderate and less polarizing views more of a chance to be heard.
  • Decent-Dissent
    !
    Less than half of this country votes. Those who come out in the biggest number are often elderly. Humans are creatures of habbit. So unfortunantly: closed minded Rs will vote R, while open minded Ds vote D. Most likely Romney wins :(