3rd Party Candidates: spoilers?

As we approach another election year, one of the issues both the GOP and Democrats must look at is who is running on a third-party ticket, as it can have a major effect on their chances to win the presidency. We've seen this in recent years. In 1992, Ross Perot allowed Bill Clinton to win the presidency without getting a majority of the popular vote. Many debate whether Bush would have retained the White House if it wasn't for Perot. The most infamous case of a third party candidate possibly costing a candidate the election is 2000. Many, myself included, say that if it wasn't for Ralph Nader, the Green Party's candidate, Al Gore would be the president today. That can obviously be disputed, but what cannot is the facts. 65% of the people who voted for Nader in Florida, said that if Nader wasn't on the ballot, they would have voted for Gore, only 25% said they would have voted republican and the remainder said they wouldn't have voted at all. This case shows how indeed a third party candidate can have a huge impact on a presidential election.

So now I'm going to ask myself a question that is sure to be asked for many elections to come: should third party candidates be allowed on the ballots? I have a difficult time answering that question. I guess the answer has to be yes, this is a democracy and any one, with the qualifications, is able to run. But at the same time they do spoil elections. I would just like to ask these candidates, like Nader, "why run when you and everyone else know that you have zero chance of winning?" The answer is always the same: "because we bring issues to the table." I just don't see how they bring issues to the table. Nader didn't talk on any important issue, that the other candidates hadn't addressed. It seems as if he, and other third party candidates, just like the attention, people, like myself, give them by hating on them for running. It just seems so much more practical that if you have an issue, that you do speak strongly on it, but support the candidate that actually stands for those issues and has a chance of winning. For example, in 2000, who do you think Nader would govern closer to: Gore or Bush. The answer is clearly Gore, in fact, he and Gore were on the same side of all the important issues. And those issues would have gotten addressed if Nader used what little influence he had and spoke out on behalf of Gore and helped him to get elected, but instead he cost Gore, who had similar ideas to his, the election by running. Nader came off seeming like he cared more about himself than he did about the issues he supposedly cared so deeply about. But part of the blame also has to be placed on the people who vote for these spoiler candidates. To me it seems like a wasted vote.

Indeed this will be a hot debate as we inch closer to the '08 election and the possibility of another Nader run, a Bloomberg run, and even a Ron Paul libertarian ticket. In the end though, its not in my power to make sure these candidates aren't spoilers, its up to the American people to use their vote wisely to get done what they need done!