"The Nader Illusion is that both major parties are alike. He claims the Demos and the GOP are just the same, both beholden to special interests to such a degree that they're essentially paralyzed, no point in choosing one over the other. This is mostly hogwash. Yes they're beholden to special interests, but there are limits on that factor, and in fact there is a very distinct policy difference between the two parties. It *matters* which one you choose. There's not a chance that Gore would have supported --or that Kerry will support --a Constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriages. Bush will try to push one through and with a Republican congress he may well succeed. Gore or Kerry--never happen. And this is a watershed issue, like so many that distinguish GOP and Dems. Such an amendment erodes the distinction between church and state, sets a bad precedent, and of course puts a Constitutional imprimatur on discrimination against a class of people, gays.
Bush has been a one-man environmental disaster, weakening the clean air and water acts, allowing mercury and arsenic pollution to go on. Gore would NOT have done this. The air will be dirtier because Bush was elected.
Gore would have encouraged an increase in the minimum wage; Bush is against it. People will be paid less because Bush was elected."
I wonder if this is the case. I also wonder how American voters would handle the sort of ballot plurality Nader envisions. Do many other countries function under several competing parties, or do they eventually fall into two (or three) general groups, loosely organized according to the liberal/conservative, left/right wing paradigm?
