EDITORIAL – Nader’s bid could force change

Third-party candidate Ralph Nader made his presidential candidacy official on yesterday’s… Third-party candidate Ralph Nader made his presidential candidacy official on yesterday’s “Meet the Press” on NBC, citing the American public’s disenchantment with the Republican and Democratic parties as his motivations for running. Like most third-party candidates in U.S. history, Nader’s shot at the presidency is slim-to-none.

The Electoral College system makes it incredibly difficult for third-party candidates to win the presidency, even when they receive a hefty percentage of the popular vote.

But like most third-party candidates, Nader’s aspirations are about more than winning the presidency. On yesterday’s program, Nader basically acknowledged that his bid isn’t about winning, stating that, “If the Democrats can’t landslide the Republicans this year, they ought to just wrap up, close down, emerge in a different form,” according to The New York Times.

Like many third-party candidates, Nader is trying to force the presidential candidates from both parties to address issues he feels aren’t being properly addressed.

In 2000, it was the environment and consumer advocacy, and in 2008, it’s the “bloated military budget” and Medicare funding. When the mainstream candidates refuse to address these issues, third-party candidates take on another role as spoilers – the most recent example being Nader’s 2000 campaign on the Green Party ticket, which cost votes for Al Gore in several key states.

Eight years later, it’s hard to imagine what an Al Gore presidency could have done – or prevented – for this country. Nader has said that only Democrats are to blame for losing the race to George W. Bush in 2000, and we agree.

If Democrats were unilaterally confident in Al Gore, they would have voted for him. Support for third-party candidates ultimately reflects uncertainty and disenchantment in the American electorate.

The excitement surrounding the 2008 presidential candidates, particularly on the Democratic side, will make a Nader-spoiled loss unlikely. Instead, Nader’s candidacy might do what it’s intended to do: force the Republican and Democratic presidential nominees to address issues that have been largely ignored in their campaigns. While Nader’s candidacy won’t likely worry the Republican Party, it might inspire a conservative third-party candidate to step forward.

The 2008 presidential campaigns have mostly voiced one relatively broad concept: change.

Democratic candidates Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton have stumped on this promise for months now, and even Republican frontrunner John McCain has promised a change in direction from the current Republican leadership.

And sometimes the best way to guarantee change is to embrace third-party candidates who pressure the mainstream candidates to clarify their positions on the issues.

That’s true democracy.