W. Alan Beckelheimer "Something To Think About ..." Published Sept. 22, 2004

Should Nader be on the ballot in November?

Third party presidential candidate Ralph Nader's battle for ballot access has been an uphill one, and there remains some dispute over exactly which states' ballots Nader's name will appear. Yesterday, Maryland became the 30th state to allow Nader on the ballot as a presidential candidate. That court of appeals decision followed a Friday ruling by Florida's Supreme Court allowing Nader to appear on that battleground state's ballot as well.

Nader, the Green Party nominee in 2000, won less than 3 percent of the popular vote that year, but was widely credited, and blamed, for tipping the balance against Democrat Al Gore in that photo-finish election. This year, the Nader campaign reports that they have qualified in enough states to compete for a total of 282 electoral votes. But according to a New York Times tally, Nader's petitions have not yet been ruled valid in at least 17 of those states. And legal challenges continue in at least a dozen others, where 166 electoral votes are up for grabs.

Third party political entities exist as mostly a side note in American history. Perhaps the best known and most successful was Theodore Roosevelt's Bull Moose party. Recent third party candidates that have been noteworthy are Ross Perot and the man who is stirring up so much trouble in the 2004 presidential election, Ralph Nader.

Nader is viewed in contrasting lights depending on who is talking about him.

Democrats, sometimes bitterly, view Nader as the spoiler of the 2000 presidential election.

They cite the fact that in the 2000 presidential election in New Hampshire and Florida, Nader garnered more votes in each state than the margin of victory between Vice President Al Gore and current President George W. Bush. Therefore, Democrats conclude, had Nader not been on the ballot, then Al Gore would have been able to win the electoral college, in addition to winning the popular vote, thus making him president.

Democrats also contend that Nader should not be pursuing his presidential bid because he is splitting the progressive vote, thereby taking valuable votes away from Democratic presidential nominee John Kerry.

In efforts to keep Nader off of the ballot in every state possible, Democrats have devoted watchdog groups to making sure Nader follows the letter of the law to the fullest extent, often bringing up litigation against Nader and his supporters when they feel laws have been sidestepped in attempts to get Nader on ballots in November. Democrats also bristle at the mention of Nader's name on a ballot because they believe Republicans directly aided Nader in his drive to get on the ballot in Florida, a key battleground state. Why do Democrats feel this way?

Nader got on the ballot in Florida, in large part because his attorney there, Ken Sukhia, helped get him on the ballot. Ken Sukhia was an attorney, if you can believe this, for President Bush in the 2000 recount.

There may be some merit to the Democrats' concerns. In the 2000 presidential election, 38 percent of people that voted for Ralph Nader were registered Democrats while only 25 percent of Nader supporters were Republicans.

Nader's campaign, in a direct response to the Democrats labeling Nader supporters as spoilers, has embraced the label going so far as to print T-shirts emblazoned with the slogan, "Revolutionaries spoil corrupt systems."

Republicans embrace Nader's candidacy with open arms putting forward the argument that it's all part of the American political process.

One can't help but realize that in the past, Nader has been good for George W. Bush and all evidence indicates that Nader will be good for Bush in '04.

Republicans agree, often throwing their support behind Nader both monetarily in the form of contributions and by providing Nader legal aid in the states where he is having to pursue litigation to get his name on the ballot. This is evidenced across the nation and those interested in the political process of our nation will have to wait and see what effect Nader has on who our next president will be.

For my part, I am in favor of Ralph Nader being on the ballot for president in November. Nader has a comprehensive track record as a consumer advocate and is an intelligent man with views that need to be brought to the forefront of our nation's attention. Whether or not these issues will be addressed by Kerry or Bush remains to be seen.

The founders of our country disparaged the party system of politics but it seems that their evolution was inevitable. Like-minded people naturally congregate to effect change in any society and Nader should be welcome to do the same. Just because his party is new doesn't make it divisive or a spoiler. We still live in a democracy and if people choose to vote for Ralph Nader they are entitled to do so.

While it is unlikely that Nader will win the presidential election this year, his supporters may garner enough votes (3 percent) to acquire federally funding for the Green party in subsequent elections. This is democratic, American and in my opinion absolutely unchallengeable, regardless of your party affiliation.

· · ·
W. Alan Beckelheimer is a Crossville Chronicle staffwriter. His column appears each Wednesday in the Chronicle.