Hunting The Muse

You fail to show that Nader is in fact a third party spoiler. According to your definition, one of the requirements is that :
"The spoiler is clearly ideologically closer to one of the winnable candidates than the other(s), in terms of voter support "

Prove that Nader is ideologically closer to one of the winnable canditates than the other.

Your definition of democratic intent is weak because it focuses on the candidates rather than on political issues. In the case where both winnable candidates agree on most issues considered important by voters, the election boils down to a personality contest. While this scenario still fits your definition of democratic intent, I believe that most supporters of a Nader presidential bid find it intolerable. To strengthen your argument you should either show that this cannot happen, or that it is not currently happening.

There is a subproof called NaderIsAThirdPartySpoiler, where I rely on polls showing Kerry gaining more support than Bush when Nader is removed from the equation. I think that's enough to prove it, because what matters in terms of spoiling is what the voting population's perceptions and behaviors are.

As for the second, it's obvious that Kerry and Bush are materially different, especially in domestic matters. Reviewing the policy documents on their web sites prove it. But beyond that, I'm not clear on your grounds for arguing that Democratic Intent is irrelevant in the case of them being identical. Maybe the point would be that Democratic Intent wouldn't really be protected even in voting between Bush and Kerry in that case? I could see that being a point of contention.

But, this really comes down to one of my own beliefs. People who don't see a difference really wouldn't be choosing Kerry over Bush, because they are identical. I think that if the only people supporting Nader were folks that would basically not vote (or would vote randomly and equally distributed) if only Bush and Kerry were in the election, then I wouldn't have a problem with them voting for Nader. That wouldn't undermine Democratic Intent. However, the numbers still show that removing Nader from the equation leads to more support for Kerry than for Bush. So, Nader is still undermining Democratic Intent, and Nader voters as a whole don't see Kerry and Bush as identical.

I'm not immediately sure how to incorporate that all in the proofs, but you're welcome to click on them and edit them yourself.

Which polls? What numbers? And in exactly what ways are the party platforms different? Not trying to be a pain, but I really am having trouble finding numbers and sources to back this up.

The polls and the information on what each party would support are easy to find. Keep looking.

I don't believe you. Show me a link or list them.

What were Ross Perot's chances of winning? What are Michael Badnarik's chances?

It's not about whether or not they can win. Look at it this way: The two major candidates are within 10 percentage points of each other. If a third party or independent candidate manages to get even a few of those points, both major parties immediately start paying attention and change their platforms to try to get the support of those independant voters. That's what happened with Perot. It's what happens whenever a third party candidate gets a significant part of the vote. A vote for Nader is more a vote for change in the way government is controlled by corporate interests. A vote for Perot was a vote for change in the way the budget was handled, and a call for fiscal responsibility. A vote for Badnarik is a vote for less governmental control. A vote for a republican or a democrat is a vote for a particular set of moral principles, not for any significant change in the way our government works.

To answer your previous question - you were being deliberately obtuse so I didn't feel like humoring you (the evidence is everywhere), but since I am reading one article right now that makes the point crystal clear, here you go.

http://salon.com/news/feature/2004/10/27/nader/index1.html:

All campaign long, Nader has been making the implausible claim that he will draw as much support from Republicans as from Democrats. But surveys show more of Nader's support coming from Democratic-leaning voters. A Nation Institute swing-state poll in October found 84 percent of Nader supporters saying they would still vote if he were not running; 49 percent favored Kerry and 17 percent favored Bush, with others undecided or preferring alternative candidates. An aggregation of Zogby International polls through September shows 41 percent of Nader supporters favoring Kerry and 15 percent favoring Bush. Exit polling on Election Day in 2000 found 47 percent of Nader's voters preferring Gore and 21 percent preferring Bush.

And as for your last comment, doesn't it even occur to you that "a vote for a change in the way government is controlled by corporate interests" makes it more likely that the government will be even more controlled by corporate interests? The Democrats want less corporate control, the Republicans want more.

The results of an action have to be aligned with the intent of the action in order for it to be... well, sane. Both Nader and you are against corporate control - well, great. Voting for Nader increases the chances of corporate control. But you don't care, because, what? It's the principle of the matter? What principles are those? Because it sure doesn't seem to be about reducing corporate control.

Nader doesn't believe in incremental change. And that's how change works. Little by little. That's reason enough not to vote for him.