I am responding to “Nader’s ego drives bid” by Nyerere Tryman in the March 2 Reflector.
The idea that Ralph Nader is purely ego-driven in his choice to run for president in 2004 is crazy. Nader has clearly expressed his views that he is not in the race to oust Democrats, but to help in the defeat of George Bush.
I find many flaws in the thinking of a person that believes Nader is lying when discussing his purpose.
To think that Nader only takes away from Democrat votes assumes that Republicans do not have open minds. While this may be the case for some Republicans, the same is true for Democrats.
In 2000, I voted for George Bush. I support my decision, but this does not make me a party-line voter. The truth is, many people out there do not vote strictly for a party; they vote for a person who best conveys their ideas because it matters who leads.
The thought that only Democrats will change their votes to another person is a direct assault on the intelligence for those who voted Bush in 2000. The 97,000 Florida votes in 2000 could have gone any way, not specifically to Gore.
Numbers can be helpful, but strictly relying on them is fallacious. To report that 90 percent of registered voters are Democrat or Republican can force a person into a logical trap. This is because, as stated above, many people are undecided.
The great thing about America is that it is OK to be undecided. Undecided people tend not to register to certain parties because they are not sure who to support, which is OK. Registered voters choose to vote a certain way no matter who is running, which is also OK-America has a great thing going.
Some people take this great thing for grated, though. To think that “America’s political landscape is set for a two-party system” is to be scared of new ideas.
It may be good to have two parties that represent two extreme points of view (say, conservative and liberal), but to have these extremes take complete and total control is absurd. To have only two options available to one of the most diverse voting populations in the world is beyond comprehension.
America’s political landscape is set for freedom. The only reason America-NOT America’s political landscape-is set for a two party system is because people fall into the thinking that the two main options presented (read: the parties with the most air time and money) are the only real options available.
The claim that a third party may “take votes” indicates that the party getting “votes taken” is not in touch with the people and does not represent a majority of the population.
When a party does represent a majority, they are put in office. If a party cannot handle some competition, can they handle the country?
In politics, to be the best, you must represent the most. This is not easy; if it were easy, everyone would do it.
To say that “Nader has failed to note the changes in America since the election of 2000” implies he is not in touch with the present. If this were true, it would show in the “votes received” column.
No fear should come from a man focused on the past. It must be pointed out that a majority of anti-Nader folks point to the 2000 election numbers for support. Remember anti-Nader folks: a lot has happened since 2000.
To note that a majority of Nader votes came from “protest votes”-which I would like a definition for-and to predict that the “protest vote will be nowhere near as large this year” is venturing out on a thin limb.
Once again, remember that a lot has changed since 2000; a lot of this change has brought protest. There was no war with Iraq in 2000. This war brought protests; these protests came all the way to Oktibbeha County Courthouse.
Consider this one of my assumptions: if a protest reaches Starkville, the protest is nation-wide.
Anti-Nader folks, in fact all Americans, need to free themselves from the constraints of titles such as “Democrat” or “Republican.” I am not pro-Nader. I am not pro-Bush. I am not pro-(place winner of Democratic endorsement here).
I am, however, pro-freedom. If someone meets the requirements presented in the Constitution and feels the need, they should run for president.
This country should not be shown in states that are either blue or red. Freedom of vote is important and should not be taken for granted.
Anyway, aren’t the close games more exciting? Everyone should go out and vote for who they think will be the best person for the job. As for whom I am going to vote for in November, for now I am undecided; I hope that’s OK.
Justin Byrnes is a senior anthropology major.