For the two dozen students and activists who gathered on the corner of Oak Street and Washington Avenue in Minneapolis on Oct. 17, there is no doubt which candidate will receive their vote in the upcoming presidential election.
Homemade cardboard sandwich signs, proclaiming things like “Gore for Sale” and “We Don’t Need Another Bush,” mingled among the green and white political posters emblazoned with “Nader/LaDuke 2000.” A moment later, the activists marched toward campus in a rally calling for Green Party candidate Ralph Nader’s admittance into the presidential debates.
In this two-party system however, more than a few students harboring Green Party ideology are asking themselves if a vote for Nader would be an intelligent choice in this election.
The reason for this question is the ever-tightening presidential race in Minnesota and across the nation between two major-party candidates. Voters who dislike both party candidates but are afraid to cast “wasted” or “spoiler” votes for a third-party or obscure candidate must decide what to do.
Mike Perrizo, a University architecture student, cites a fear of Bush in office as the reason he will vote for Gore come election day.
“I’d like to vote for Nader, but it’s not worth it. I know he’s not going to win,” he said. “I don’t want Bush to be president. He wants to drill into our national forests.”
Art history student Barie Shortell echoed Perrizo’s fears and said although he originally supported Nader, the election is too close to risk wasting a vote.
“Bush scares me,” he said. “I know that him being president isn’t going to change that much, but he represents an ideology and that right ideology says a lot.”
Bill Flanigan, a political science professor and voting-behavior expert at the University, said he found the students’ concerns ludicrous. The few votes Nader will receive will have no effect on the outcome of the election, especially not in the historically Democratic state of Minnesota, he said. There is no need to engage in “strategic voting,” Flanigan said.
“I don’t think most people believe a vote for a third party is a wasted vote,” he said, noting that the last two political elections have had a third-party candidate — Reform Party candidate Ross Perot — and people simply voted for the candidate they liked best.
But a recent poll by the Star Tribune suggests otherwise.
The results, released Oct. 20, show Bush and Gore in a dead heat in Minnesota. With Nader receiving 8 percent support, more than double the national average, the major party candidates can no longer afford to ignore him or the voters who support him. Political experts say Nader’s support comes mainly from Democratic and Independent voters. Meanwhile, Reform Party candidate Pat Buchanan, the conservative counterpart to the liberal Nader, received only 1 percent in the poll, pulling only a few presumably would-be Bush supporters to his side.
Both campaigns have begun focusing more attention on the handful of previously ignored states where Nader has garnered significant support. Gore stopped in Madison, Wis., Davenport, Iowa, and Minneapolis last Saturday.
A recent television advertisement sponsored by a Democratic committee broadcast in Minnesota speaks for itself: the commercial simply told voters that a vote for Nader is a vote for Bush.
On the Republican side, new campaign plans include a television campaign scheduled to begin running Monday in Wisconsin, Oregon and Washington, states which were previously presumed lost to Gore. The ads boost Nader, using sound bites of several of the candidate’s speeches during which Nader criticized Gore. Commercial sponsors hope the ads will actually increase Nader support, thereby decreasing the support Gore has in those important states.
Nader supporters ignore those fears, and say issues should be the only factor in the decision-making process.
Volunteers working on the Nader-LaDuke campaign have heard the concerns about “wasted votes” and the dismay at Bush’s lead from constituents, said Jessica Patridge, an activist for the campaign. But individuals who will vote for Gore simply to keep Bush out of office should really examine the candidates more closely, she said.
“This is a dangerous trap to fall into, and dangerously close to the excuse that ‘one vote doesn’t matter.’ It is dangerous because millions of Americans fall into this trap,” she said. “The truth is, things will never change unless people have the courage to change them.
“Third parties are growing rapidly as people become increasingly disillusioned,” she said.
A few weeks ago, University political professor Lisa Disch thought a vote for the Green Party candidate wouldn’t make any significant difference in a state that supported both Michael Dukakis and Walter Mondale in previous presidential elections, two Democratic candidates that received little support nationwide. However, the recent poll results have brought about a change in her thinking, she said.
“Nader is definitely a threat to Gore,” Disch said. “Even if 5 percent of the vote goes to him, the contest is close enough to swing Minnesota for Bush.”
Regardless, Disch said she thought voters should express their true political leanings at the polls.
“Some will argue that under these conditions, a third-party vote is irresponsible. I would say that a third-party vote coming from Minnesotans under these conditions is a powerful protest against the rightward move of the Democratic Party,” she said.
Back on the street corner, Nader supporters were eager to point out the differences between Nader and the two major candidates, whom they believe to be very similar.
Supporter Evan Izaksonas refused to be influenced by the tight race.
“You should vote for something you believe in,” he said. “Always vote your conscience.”
Tim Hayes, Nader’s state campus coordinator, agreed and said casting votes for candidates they don’t support is the antithesis of democracy.
“I think that’s garbage,” he said. “I still think you should vote for Nader even if you’re scared of Bush.”
Student groups supporting Gore did not return phone calls.