This post is about Nader (don’t say I didn’t warn you)

Good news from Florida, which, scarily, may again be the deciding factor in the upcoming election.

I confess that when I hear that Nader has suffered a setback or failed to make a state ballot, I celebrate first and investigate the particulars later. The potential substantive implications–and consequences–of Nader’s name on state ballots significantly outweighs my concerns about procedural manners. Still, the legal challenge mounted by the Democrats in Florida seems prima facie legitimate. If the issue hinges on whether or not the Reform party is an actual party, the fact that they haven’t fielded a candidate for any office since 2000 and have upwards of eighteen dollars in their bank account would seem to indicate that there are legitimate questions here.

Nader supporters, of course, are up in arms. This, we are told, is a blow to democracy itself. This is the claim I’d like to investigate a little bit.

When one studies democratic theory, one begins to notice the sheer volume of arguments that invoke democracy as a rationale, without any serious attempt to explain what is meant by democracy or how it is threatened/supported. It’s tempting to simply dismiss or ignore these imprecise and seemingly reflexive invocations of democracy, but I think it’s more appropriate and revealing to take the seriously and explore what is meant by them.

First, let’s review the existing situation. First of all, no citizen (with voting rights) in this country will be denied the right to vote for Ralph Nader. If he isn’t on the ballot, a vote for him can still be cast as a write-in. What Nader is fighting for is the ease and convenience with which people can vote for him. This is worth remembering when the histrionics start to get to be a bit much–none of the people doing the wailing will be prevented from voting for Ralph Nader, as long as they can remember how to spell his name.

The question of ballot access is still a serious one. There would be clear problems with banning all candidates who are not the official R or D candidate from the ballot, and there would be clear problems with putting anyone on the ballot who asks. How to determine where the happy medium should be is up to the states, and they’ve come to a rather diverse set of conclusions about that. As far as I know, states are generally clear about the rules. Nader knew this going in. Many states make it easier for established parties to have easier ballot access from year to year than party-less individuals. There are, I think, good reasons for such a distinction.

Anyway, let’s try to figure out what the substance of the Nader complaint re: democracy is in these cases. Here are the possibilities as I see them.

1) Some states have ballot rules that are overly restrictive.

There are perfectly plausible arguments for this position, as well as arguments against it. The arguments against easy ballot access are worth taking seriously. If the goal of an election is to approximate the will of the people, or at least most of them, then a large number of candidates on the ballot has the potential to make this less likely, and create outcomes like (to take a random hypothetical example) instilling a right-wing ideologue in office despite the fact that a solid majority of voters don’t support him.

(Of course, all this is a proper discussion of policy, not a reason to ignore the existing laws. If, as Nader and co. seem to imply, these rules are too restrictive, they should be changed through legislation or through a legal challenge, if there is a basis for such a challenge. Most theories of democracy with which I am aware take the rule of law rather seriously…)

But Naderites, as far as I can tell, aren’t really engaging this or other serious objections to such a position, or even defending such a position on its merits (which do, I think, exist). Rather, they seem to take it as axiomatic that Nader’s lack of presence on the ballot is a blow for democracy. Now, dozens of fringe candidates try and fail to get on state ballots every year, and fall short of the requirements. Are they cheated as well? It seems clear that the frustration and outrage (and threat to democracy) is rather Nader-specific. There must be some special reason. What might that be?

2) Nader should be allowed on the ballot because he’s a famous national figure.

3) Nader should be allowed on the ballot because he was on it before.

4) Nader should be allowed on the ballot because the only reason people noticed he fell short of the minimum requirements is a Democrat led legal challenge, and they have a practical interest in excluding Nader.

#2 doesn’t pass any sort of laugh test, and #3 isn’t much better when you consider that Nader is no longer affiliated with the party that got him ballot access in 2000. Should Bob Dole, Jimmy Carter, and Howard Phillips be granted automatic ballot access as “legacy” candidates? I can’t think of a good democratic reason to support such a position, and I can think of plenty of reasons to oppose it. Finally, #4 is quite accurate in it’s factual claims–the Democrats behind this and other lawsuits have more than the integrity of ballot access rules in mind. But so what? The Democrats don’t make the decision, they present their case to judges, who do make the decision. Lawsuits can be brought by those who have standing. In cases like this, where there is no obvious “wronged party” if the rules aren’t followed, standing must necessary be a bit more open. Furthermore, if the Nader campaign wants to seriously raise this objection, they would need to reject the opportunistic and disingenuous support they’ve been welcoming from Republicans around the country.

Bottom line: Nader and his supporters have frequently offered as a rationale for his candidacy the notion that our current political system is ‘broken’. While I have reservations about such a claim, I’m not entirely unsympathetic to it (or, at least, I’m less unsympathetic to it than my co-bloggers). Nevertheless, if the specific critiques of the existing system seem to come up if and when they inconvenience the candidate railing against them, well, it’s hard to take such a critique seriously. At their best, third-party/independent candidates can raise serious issues and critiques of our existing political system and policy options that are, for whatever reason, ignored by the two parties. Whining about existing policies when and because they inconvenience you is disgraceful and pointless, and invoking the integrity of ‘democracy’ as a convenient but unsupported rationale for such whining suggests that he’s not serious about furthering the cause of democracy at all. I’ll leave speculation about the point of his candidacy to others, but to further the cause of real, better or stronger democracy would appear to be out.

Update: Apparently I dismissed #2 a bit more readily than than Nader’s supporters do. The blog at this website devoted to Nader’s inclusion in the presidential debates includes a letter to the Kerry campaign that poses the following question:

If a national popular hero like Ralph Nader cannot get on the ballot in
America, how much democracy do we have?

This question is apparently meant to be rhetorical.

Update II: I wrote without doing my homework regarding the issue of write in votes. They are apparently not allowed in a few states, and many others have a procedure in order to have them counted. For the skinny such matters, I direct your attention to this post at the Bonassus. This excellent blog should be regular reading; among other things, as far as I can tell it’s the only place to go for up to the minute commentary on the brewing international conflict between Canada and Denmark (no, really).