Instant Runoff Voting obviously would eliminate the need to debate about whether you should vote for your favorite candidate.  You can indicate your first, second, third choices, the winner is required to get a majority of the vote and there would be no more so-called spoilers.

The Democratic Party, with some exceptions, has been lukewarm at best to this reform in the many places across the country where activists have been working hard to enact it, and in many places the Democrats have squashed it.  IRV has been successfully enacted in over a dozen cities since 2000.  It would be used in Alaska for this presidential election had a statewide referendum passed in 2002, opposed by the Democratic Party.

So if IRV would solve the spoiler problem, and the Democratic Party is not pushing for IRV, why do they complain about spoilers?  Is it because they like the spoiler problem because they use it to scare us into voting for them every four years?  Should I enable this behavior by voting for Obama because I am scared of McCain?  How many more elections are we supposed to vote from Democrats because we are scared?

This is the argument that never gets answered.  I have been asking Nader haters this question for eight years and all I get is blank stares with the sound of crickets chirping.  Can someone answer this for me please?  Really, I have asked this question hundreds of times.

Thank you for reminding me that we are global citizens, and that we have a duty to act to give a voice to the voiceless.

I understand how Nader voters feel, but I will say this: We have to start somewhere.

I have admired Mr. Hedges’ work, but his choice is profoundly irresponsible…. Nader was one of three major factors that allowed Bush to get close enough to steal the election in 2000 and then again in 2004.

Perhaps, Mr. Hedges wishes to have more tragedies to write about ... Nader is an unconscionable choice based on all the blood on Nader’s hands and based on what a McCain victory would mean.

It is not enough to write about atrocities in sensitive ways.. one has to vote in realistic, pragmatic ways to do the least harm in the future.  Mr. Hedges acts with callous indifference to the welfare of hundred of millions to vote for someone with the blood of millions on his hand.

Joe Chiara

Nader does have some good position points but…I don’t think he has any idea what he’s doing.

I’ve seen him on many talk shows, and his main debate strategy seems to be to blurt out his position as quickly as possible, and try to get as many not-very-clever bon mots in at his opponents, regardless if the moderator/host/other debater has moved on to a new subject.  Like it or not, a president needs some oratory and debate skills, and he ain’t got ‘em. 

Can you imagine this guy going into delicate negotiations with Russia?  Or, heck, even the republicans?

I’m all for a viable third party, but…c’mon, we need someone more plasuable than Nader.

But bama ‘s messasge is based on rhetoric not fact.
He is in favor of the death penalty, the patriot act keeping troops in Iraq, ans also he is being touted as a champion of animal rights while at the same time he has voted in favor of FArm act which supports big business: http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2008-05-15-farmbill_N.htm

As a Kucinich voter and supporter, I gladly hand my vote to Nader, 3rd times the charm.

Why?

Because I can.

Dear Chris Hedges,
    I cannot tell you how much I appreciate your point of view in approaching the Presidential election.  Like it or not, America determines the fate of many other people who are not going to vote in this election - the people of Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, Pakistan, Iran, etc.  They do not share the “hope” shouted from every rooftop by Senator Obama.  They will not see the “change” he preaches to his sycophant audiences.  As Americans, we owe it to the rest of the world to vote for the candidate with the best ideas for the world, not just for the United States.  We are an increasingly interconnected world where our actions have such tremendous impact on other human beings - other humans with the same right to “life, liberty, and pursuit of freedom.” 
    I hope you all had a chance to read Bill Moyer’s article called “The Sounds of Voting - and Check Writing” about campaign financing (posted on commondreams.org; as great as it was, where was this piece a few weeks ago, Bill?).  Obama has taken $37 million from lobbyists, $21.6 million from telecommunications companies (thank you for FISA, Senator Obama), and $16 million from health care interests. 
    The duolopy is completely uninterested in making changes.  I harbor a small bit of hope (vastly different from Senator Obama’s “hope”) that maybe things will get better for the people who deserve it: the working poor, the people in countries where Americans are killing, slaughtering, torturing.  I doubt they’ll get better under Senator Obama.  It is difficult to make changes for the people oppressed by American hegemony and domination when special interest groups will line Pennsylvania Ave.
-Kenneth Libby

Most of what Hedges says is spot on. Except for the red herring about the war in Afghanistan. Hedges never explains why al Qaeda should not be destroyed. They are butchers. They perpetrate the same violent religious extremism that Hedges has warned about growing here at home. Except that they are acting on their beliefs with extreme violence.

To lump the Palestinian struggle together with the fascism of Bin Laden is an insult to Palestinians and mocks their legitimate struggle. Many of us progressives, while we admire and agree with Nader, realize that allowing al Qaeda to regroup and prosper is detrimental to a peaceful world.

Many of us would love it if Hedges were to, say, write an article detailing specifically how he sees peace coming to Afghanistan or how he imagines peace with al Qaeda.

But until then, or until Bin Laden flies to NYC, gets on hands and knees and begs forgiveness for killing my friends, well, then, I do believe we need to continue to destroy al Qaeda. And rightfully so.

I have no patience for the most common “tired” belief about voting for Nader—that a vote for Nader is a vote for the Republicans. I have never voted Democratic in my life, but now I suspect that I may never again vote for either of the two parties who have been running our country for generations. Hedges’ article covers many of the reasons I have for doing this. I too will vote for Nader tomorrow. If every supposed liberal in this country would vote their conscience instead of marching lockstep with a party that doesn’t give a damn about them, Nader would win handily. But billions of dollars of advertising have convinced Americans that they MUST vote for one or the other party, and most Americans, duped by the media, will unfortunately continue to do what they are told—just as millions have been brainwashed into thinking that they need huge four-wheel drive trucks to go to the supermarket, or that they should get their drinking water out of plastic bottles.
We will surely get the government we deserve unless we tune out corporate-run media sources and start developing the kind of world view that Mr. Hedges has.

Your arguments stating that Nader would beat Obama is a totally divisive message worthy of the wingnuts. You neither acknowledge Sen. Obama’s remarkable ability to unite people from all cultures and subcultures of America nor Mr. Nader’s agenda to divide the same by vilifying the everyone with differing viewpoints.

If Mr. Nader could unite the way Sen. Obama does he wouldn’t need to beg for equal time every time a mic is within range. He would receive stronger backing and support from everyday citizens if they were not told by him and all his followers that they are the worst form of scum on earth for disagreeing with his opinions. Mr. Nader doesn’t want the job of POTUS, he’d no longer have someone else to blame for the problems facing our nation in this extremely volatile world in which we all MUST live.

While I sympathize with Chris on his correct point that Nader is better on the issues, the fact is that he cannot get elected under the current US system. Unfortunately, Chris’s vote therefore is two things: (1) It is a wasted or even negative vote and (2) it takes energy away from what we should be doing, namely building a peoples coalition to force Obama to make the changes we know need making (despite his financial backers). It is an old adage but being right and losing is not enough.

Not likely JohannG, so youmay just as well slither under the rock pile from whence you and your Obamaniac ilk arose. You know the one: the rock of laziness. The rock of “herd mentality”. The rock of same ol’ same ol’.
Good luck to you, and your chosen candidate. However, when the real change you crave falls flat and and your hope drowns in the puddle of despair, don’t come crying to the brave ones who voted their consciences. We’ll be the ones holding our heads high as you and your ilk hang your heads, shaking them in disbelief.