>>You don't understand. The purpose isn't to force them to reform
>>their party, but to reform the electoral system, so that the
>>crucial votes of those who vote for minor parties can be garnered
>>for the major parties rater than being wasted.
>
>But Nader isn't running with or trying to build a party. He's a lone
>ranger, out for himself,
The strategy I outlined has as its object electoral reform, which is a pre-condition for building an electoral party in the US. There's no use moaning if he doesn't agree with your strategic priorities. Under the current US electoral system, political parties are irrelevant, so it is quite peculiar to rant and rave about him being a "lone ranger". This is the system, electoral candidates in the US stand and fall as individuals, there is no place for political parties in the system, so what's the point of building a party under such a system?
I mean, if Nader represented a party, what exactly would be the point of being a member of that party? It wouldn't be able to determine the policy espoused (let alone the policy implemented, if elected) of the candidate. The party couldn't even determine who its candidate would be. members of the Democrat Party don't choose their candidate, neither do members of the Republican party.
A political party in that sort of system is less than a cheer squad for a candidate. There's no need for a party structure as we understand it. So why build a party structure in the first place?
You'll need to explain it to me.
>and it seems out for personal revenge.
So you say. So, incidentally, say the apologists for the Democrats who stand to lose crucial votes as a result of his run. One would expect them to attack their opponent, but there's no evidence for their allegations and only he can really say what his motives are.
We of course can speculate. We can choose to attribute his motives to pointless revenge, or well-thought out strategy. Either might be true We can also speculate about the motives of those who support the democrats and co-incidentally speculate about the motivations of someone running against the democrats.
Personally, I tend to lean towards the view that people act out of rational self-interest. I judge motives according to outcomes and assume that the obvious outcome is what is intended. But I'm a bit dim like that. Socially inept. So you might be right, he might be simply deranged. Doesn't matter, better to do the right thing for the wrong reasons, than to do the wrong thing (vote against what you believe in) for the right reasons.
Bill Bartlett Bracknell Tas