Because Nader won more votes in Florida than the margin between Gore and Bush, some have suggested Nader’s candidacy tipped the election to Bush. That particular assertion has always seemed absurd to me, as if the Democratic Party’s candidate is somehow entitled to all votes that do not go to the Republican Party’s candidate. In a democracy, each voter casts his or her vote for the candidate they see as the best person for the job, and in 2000, more than 137,000 Floridians voted for Nader, Pat Buchanan, Harry Browne and other third-party and independent candidates.

In asserting that Nader “stole” the election “for Bush,” are these Democrats saying the people who voted for these candidates should not have had the right to vote for whom they felt was best suited to become president? Each of these third-party and independent candidates won more votes than the margin between Gore and Bush, so why is all of the anger directed solely at Nader? Why are some Democrats more concerned about the approximately 97,000 votes Nader got than the nearly 3 million Bush won? None of this seems to add up.

Even more absurd are the assertions that Nader “wanted” Bush to win and that he has run for president for egotistical reasons. It is difficult to imagine any situation where Nader would want someone who is on the opposite end of the ideological spectrum to be president. It is equally difficult to imagine how running for president and drawing the irrational ire of so many Democrats would fuel Nader’s ego. If he were a man looking to boost his ego, I could think of a million better ways to do it than by joining an unpopular presidential campaign.

I am concerned about the health of a democracy that has such anger toward anyone who dares to challenge the supremacy of the two largest parties. In both 2000 and 2004, these parties’ candidates’ positions on major issues (defense and in 2004 the war in Iraq, universal health care, corporate corruption of politics, electoral reform) were similar. Recognizing this, Nader ran in both elections to give voters “more voices and more choices.”

Specifically, Nader’s strategy has been to emphasize issues that have large popular appeal but are “off the table” to the candidates of the Democratic and Republican parties because of their allegiances to corporate donors and other interests. In 2004, when a majority of Americans wanted out of Iraq, neither Bush nor his challenger John Kerry took that position. Neither had a plan for America to join the rest of the world’s developed nations in ensuring all of its citizens have health insurance, even though these concerns were some of the most important to surveyed voters.

It is much the same situation in 2008. Neither Clinton, Obama nor John McCain supports a single-payer national health care system, a crackdown on corporate crime or a reduction of the extremely bloated military budget. Thus Nader has entered the race, not with an expectation that he will be the next president, but on the basis that these are issues of critical importance that must be addressed while choosing America’s next president.

Unfortunately, the Republican and Democratic parties have gone to great lengths to ensure candidates beyond their own are silenced during the election and that they have a difficult time even getting on the ballot. Since 1987, the corporation the two parties formed, the Commission on Presidential Debates, only has allowed another candidate once — Ross Perot in 1992 — to join the Republican and Democratic candidates. Meanwhile, inconsistent ballot access rules across the 50 states make it exceptionally difficult for third-party and independent candidates to even get their names on the ballot for Election Day.

Given these symptoms of a broken democracy, America needs more people like Ralph Nader who are willing to challenge the system and demand more of both candidates and elected officials. If America really wishes to “support the growth of democratic movements and institutions,” as Bush says, it should start by taking a look at its own system first.

Rather than dismiss Nader’s candidacy as ill-intended or fear losing support to him, the Republican and Democratic candidates should welcome the opportunity to engage in a deeper and more diverse debate as we seek our 44th president. By increasing the variety of voices heard during the election process and the number of choices voters have on Election Day, we can build a stronger, healthier democracy and a better model for the rest of the world.

Ryan Dinkgrave is a State News columnist and a public relations graduate student. Reach him at dinkgra2@msu.edu.