A vote for Nader won't be wasted

A vote for Nader is a vote for Bush," I've been told a million times this election year. Maybe I'm na‹ve, but it seems to me a vote for Nader is a vote for Nader. I'm tired of hearing rhetoric which amounts to nothing more than "choose the lesser of two evils." The American political system, electoral college and all, has been very successful at limiting our options. But finally, a sincere third party candidate --i.e., not Ross Perot -- has emerged, and yet we are still making excuses to ignore him and accept the duopolistic two-party system. When I talk to Gore supporters, I keep hearing the same thing -- an unwillingness to "waste" their vote on Nader in a tight race and be responsible for allowing someone like Bush to become president, especially in light of possible Supreme Court appointments. Maybe next time around, they say, when it's not such an important race, they'll consider the Green Party. First of all, there is no better time than now. As Nader said on CNN, " If we continue to vote for Oleast worst,' both parties will get worse every year four years." Second, no matter how scary Bush is, I refuse to vote for the next-best simply out of pure repulsion of this year's GOP hopeful. I refuse to think that we have only two choices: the ridiculous and the not quite as ridiculous. Third, while people often cite possible Supreme Court nominations as reasons to vote for Gore over Nader, this logic is precarious at best. Though we have some older judges on the bench now, no conservatives will resign while Gore is president; they'd rather go blind, gavel in hand, before allowing a liberal to take their places. The same holds for liberal judges under Bush. And, while Gore may be the less conservative of the two candidates, the politics of the presidency are not always a telling sign of how a judge will vote. The two most liberal judges on the Court today were appointed by Ford and the elder Bush. And finally, if you look at Gore's record, he is not all that different from that scary conservative. Earlier in his political career, Gore fought for a fetus' right to life and against homosexuality, and he still supports capital punishment. Doesn't sound so liberal to me. This is the closest race in years, and one might argue this is a result of the public having a hard time telling the major candidates apart. But Ralph Nader is refreshing candidate who is a proponent of actual, not minimal, change. Nader is pro-choice, supports homosexual rights and is completely against the death penalty. And in further contrast to Gore, he opposes increased military spending and supports universal health care. Nader also supports a complete overhaul of the campaign finance system and public financing of elections, a position which Gore has adopted suspiciously late in his campaign. And why would Gore or Bush support real campaign finance reform? These are the laws that keep their parties so entrenched in Washington and put the needs of corporations above those of the average American. And a vote for Gore is a vote for Bush, because a vote for either is a vote for maintaining this status quo. Imagine what might happen under Nader -- somebody might get elected for his history of service and his convictions, not because his schmoozing paid for more prime-time TV ads than the other guy. And without even winning on Election Day, third parties have been a vital source of change as major parties absorb their ideas into their platforms. While I can admit that Nader's chancing of winning even one electoral vote are the same as aliens landing on the front lawn of the White House, this is not a reason to ignore Nader's message. If Nader just pulls 5 percent of the popular vote, the Green Party will receive recognition from the Federal Election Commission, which includes financing and a chance to debate -- putting it on its way to becoming a more prominent fixture in American politics. If Nader is indeed a "spoiler," his success stands to trim the fat of American politics and spoil the fun the Democrats and Republicans have been having. Here at Penn, we are more informed than most of the American electorate and use our votes to help jumpstart this process of change. Yet most of us don't give our vote much consideration and simply pull the same party lever as our parents without thinking twice. Or worst yet, we don't even vote. Get out and vote for Ralph Nader because he is the only candidate for change. And if you don't, don't complain about antics of Washington because you told them it was OK.

Please note All comments are eligible for publication in The Daily Pennsylvanian.