I stand by my belief that in this election, anyone who actually does go and vote for said liberal third party candidate would NOT have voted for the Democrat anyway, especially since the "ABB" crowd is becoming larger.
I saw Nader on Meet the Press, and he does make very good points about the two major parties. With the dramatic increase in polarization between Republicans and Democrats, something (probably negative) will eventually happen and we'll see the rise of a more moderate third party. It's too bad Ralph probably won't be around to see it.
I have to say that after watching Nader on Meet The Press (I wonder how many here actually watched it?) I still think he will make no impact - however, I must qualify my statement that his credibility is gone. He gets a lot of bad press regarding his so-called "jupiter-sized ego" but when you listen to him speak, it is clear that he has very strong beliefs and that it is these beliefs which drive him. It reminded me of the reason I voted for him in 1996. (At the time it was clear that Clinton would win re-election, so I wasn't worried about that. I voted for him to send a message about my dissatisfaction with both major parties and the two-party system in general.)
In 2000, I voted for Gore to help prevent the type of scenario that occurred in Florida and New Hampshire; HOWEVER I did take part in the "Nader Trader" system. I'm sure the same system will be available this year. You log on to "Nadertrader.org" -- I'm assuming this will be the same -- and trade your vote via e-mail with someone from another state. It's perfectly legal and confidential. Basically, if you're in a state where one party is assured of a victory - be it Democratic or Republican - you agree to vote for Ralph Nader in your state. In exchange, the other person agrees to vote for the Republican or Democratic candidate in their state which is a "swing" state. In that way, you can have your cake and eat it too, so to speak, and so can the other person.
For example, let's say I would prefer a Democratic president this year (which I would), but still want to support Nader in his crusade. A person in another state which is overwhelmingly Democratic, would agree to vote for Nader in exchange for me voting for the Democratic candidate. Or let's say someone's in an overwhelmingly Republican state; their Democratic vote is next to meaningless, therefore they agree to vote for Nader instead while I vote Democratic.
It can work the same way for dissatisfied Republicans. If their state is overwhelmingly Republican, they agree to vote for Nader while someone in a swing state votes for Bush. Or if their state is overwhelmingly Democratic, they'll do the same thing.
It's a great system and I do believe that Nader is correct to continue his fight against the corporate culture in Washington, and against the two-party system which creates nearly insurmountable obstacles to third-party candidates (both in the general election and in local and state elections).
It's also a great feeling when you go to the polls and vote for your candidate, knowing that somewhere, someone's also voting for your first alternate (or first choice).
While I realize that Washington can usually be counted on to vote Democratic, there's just enough uncertainty to make me consider it a swing state.
