|
Web Exclusives: More letters from alumni
about Ralph
Nader In response to Preston M. Wolin's letter: While some of Eugene McCarthy's "passionate" followers may have sat "on their hands" in 1968, the analogy with Nader is, I believe, faulty. After all, McCarthy was not on the ballot that November. The three major candidates were Nixon, Humphrey, and George Wallace!!! And most commentators then and even Humphrey supporters like myself felt that Wallace took more votes away from Nixon than Humphrey -- far more. Without Wallace, Nixon might have won in a landslide. Democrats didn't complain about Wallace then and cannot in all fairness complain about Nader now. Third-party candidates only make a difference when major party candidates fail to inspire. Gary Williams '68 *84 Vienna, Va. Several readers have complained about votes for Ralph Nader '55 taking away from a potential Gore victory, and Nader voters tend to respond that they ought to be able to vote for the candidate they prefer. We have a system at hand that could allow them to have their cake and eat it too: Princeton's own voting method for alumni trustees (first choice/second choice, out of three -- the third rank is implicit) - this could be extended indefinitely to an ordered-list vote of any number of candidates. Out of a field of N candidates, each voter would rank them 1 through N (one supposes that many voting for Nader as #1 would have chosen Gore as #2, or at the very least, Gore ahead of Bush, and just about everybody ahead of Buchanan). Then there are N-1 elimination rounds, with the last-place finisher in each round being removed from the next round, and their votes reverting to the next-best choice on each ballot that ranked them at the top. In the final round, you get a head-to-head matchup of the two candidates best tolerated by the most people, without splitting the ballot among candidates with similar ideologies. This mathematically removes the paradox, because those Nader votes would largely have reverted to Gore anyway, even while Nader may have gotten even more first-place votes from those who adamantly wished Bush not to win and thus voted for Gore. Thus, it also helps Nader get a better result for matching funds (which would be allocated only on the basis of absolute #1 rankings in the first round). With computer technology, this is entirely feasible. Of course, it would weaken the two-party system by encouraging much more third-party voting without fear of ballot splitting, thus the major parties would be expected to oppose such a thing quite strongly. I don't know if it is politically realistic for our country to consider this yet, but I personally think it is the fairest, most accurate method of voting, as far as expressing the actual will of the people. Dan Krimm '78 Los Angeles, CA Yes, I too would have preferred Gore to Bush. From the beginning Bush has made it very clear that he would do everything he could to put more wealth and power in the hands of the very wealthy who run our multinational corporations, and if it costs the health of our planet, so be it. Combine this with religious fundamentalism and you have a real winner. Gore would have regulated this situation a little, but he would not have dealt with the fundamental problem. We should appreciate the courage that Nader has demonstrated over the years in standing against the large corporations, and know that he is right when he says that we have become a nation of the General Motors, by the IBMs, and for the DuPonts, and that power should be in the hands of the people. When he was asked what he would do to defend America, he said he would wipe our poverty around the world. This is a profound and doable solution, but not when a few are stealing all they can for themselves. Can there be any moral argument for why any one of us should have more than one six billionth of what can be sustainably produced on our planet? This is an old fight and most Princetonians have followed Madison in trying to structure this nation for the benefit of the opulent. However, my soul thrills to Jefferson's words that all humans are endowed by our creator with certain unalienable rights, and among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Vote Green! David Jenkins '62 Sand Point, Ida.
Go back to our online Letter Box Table of Contents |
