Voting for the ‘Least Worst’ Candidate Corrupts Democracy

Speaking on C-SPAN, consumer advocate Ralph Nader decried the lack of choices at the ballot box and predicted super rich candidates would run in 2016.

But first some history. I met Ralph in 2004, while in Manchester, New Hampshire. CUIP (Committee for a Unified Independent Party) was holding a national meeting and interviewing independent presidential candidates. We eventually supported Ralph. During the campaign, Ralph came to New York City and gave a speech and I helped manage the book signing and sale of his campaign products. Listen to part of the speech:



Also WATCH his speech in a church in Harlem.

In his C-SPAN appearance, Nader said the influence of money on the political process along with the weakening of unions had prevented candidates from addressing certain controversial issues. Voting for the lesser of two evils had also allowed candidates to skirt around particular topics.

Nader, a five-time candidate for President of the United States, denied the two parties were so entrenched that it was impossible for a third party candidate to win a national election. He remarked that super wealthy individuals such as New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg had the resources to run a successful presidential campaign.

Self-financed candidates had the potential “to be attractive to a lot of voters,” Nader said, because they were not beholden to political donors and special interests.

“So people are ready,” he added. “But you have to convince them that the candidate has a chance to win. They’re not convinced the little third parties have that chance because of all the obstruction.”



So what do you think about what will happen in 2014 and 2016?










NYC Wins When Everyone Can Vote!

Michael H. Drucker
Technorati Tag in Del.icio.us