The problem for progressive legal struggles is how to expose the class inequalities in the system, without being caught in the narrow bourgeois concept of equal rights for equal individuals.
The modern standards of democracy are an achievement of worker's struggles, though the dominant ideology portrays them as a bourgeois gift to the masses. The name "Chartists" comes from the People's Charter made in 1835 by a committee of the London general labor association (the Working Men's Association) headed by William Lovett. It has 6 points: 1) Universal suffrage for all adult men, sane of mind, who have not committed any crimes; 2) A Parliament reelected every year 3) A fee for the Members of Parliament so that the non-propertied can assume the commission of representatives; 4) Election by secret ballot..; 5) Equally sized election districts to ensure even representation; 6) Abolishment of the requirement for M.P.s to own land of 300 pound value so that every voter could also have the right to be elected". That was a translation from Fr. Engels, The Condition of the Working Class in England. And universal voting rights were conceded (to men) only 4-5 decades later in the times of Disraeli! I think I read somewhere that women in the US achieved voting rights only at the start of WW II.
So don't be cross with democracy, even in it's limited representative form. It cannot present the final victory to hired labor, the great majority, but it is a step forward. The 1 man - 1 vote rule makes elections about the only game where ordinary people and the rich have a level playing field. It's the money that perverts it and that connection should be dismantled. That would be a Western Perestroika, at last!.
What bewilders me is why such a bitter competition did not motivate any of the candidates to reach out for the 50% that do not usually vote. It is easier to persuade those that do not already have an opinion, but they ignored a 100 million only to end up quarreling about a few hundred punch cards. Nader seems to have targeted mainly studentsand academics, a small group, though his slogans could have attracted a vast sea of people. How can you explain that?