April 01, 2004
Democratic Intent
Updated Subproof: DemocraticIntentMustBeProtected.Seems like all of the arguments supporting Nader's run turn on different definitions of Democracy. I'm trying to gather them together here.
(I think after this it'll be worthwhile to try and identify all the steps that could be taken (or could have been taken) that would have made Nader's run conflict-free.)
DemocraticIntent must be protected. This is pretty much a truism. Anyone opposing this argument for politic purposes would be exposing Democracy to the same sort of abuse from their political enemies.
American Democracy is about majority rule, without minorities being trampled. This is not the same as minority rule. Minorities are given protection, but not the right to win elections outright.
DemocraticIntent must be protected. If it is currently undermined, we must work toward restoring it.
Surprisingly, this is the subproof that is contested most often in defending Nader's run. Common arguments are:
- Messing up an election is worthwhile since it draws attention to how our elections are messed up
- Electing undesirable candidate undemocratically is worthwhile because it will create a reaction against that candidate's politics in the future
- Holding democracy hostage is worthwhile because the minority represented by a third party candidate knows what is best for America, better than the rest of the nation
- It is undemocratic to keep the third party candidate's supporters from having a choice, and giving them a choice trumps the nation's right to be democratically represented
- The third party candidate's democratic right to run trumps the right of the nation to be democratically represented
It seems that all arguments in support of a spoiler's run are either undemocratic, or made by people either under the impression that the spoiler can win.
Parent: NaderShouldNotRun