yay, fourth parties!

I admit it, I'm one of those square killjoys who "blames" Ralph Nader for George W Bush's "election" in 2000. I know, I know--it was Gore's fault, really, for running a poor campaign. It was Florida's fault, for fucking everything up. Third parties are necessary for a healthy democracy, of which, this country of ours is not the most shining specimen. I've heard it all before. The points have some validity. But, if there had been no Nader, it would have been President Gore--a man who went on to win the Nobel Peace Prize. Instead, we got a likeable guy who mispronounces things amusingly. But, I digress...my point is here, that I have no problem with challenging the two party system--in principle. But, in practice, it fucks things (things meaning the country, the world, the economy, things like that) over royally when it's one sided. Look, Ralph Nader wasn't really running as an alternative to the two parties--i.e., someone with moderate compromises or new solutions to old gridlock. He was running as a "pure" liberal, someone who appealed to the far left of the Democratic base. He wasn't a third party, he was an extra Democrat. To avoid simply skewing the election results, you need something more balanced. You need a genuine third party that appeals to people from both sides--or, two extra parties who appeal to the "purists" from either side. (Or, all three, wouldn't that be lovely?)

Weeeellll...looks like we might just have something workable this year. Nader is running again. But...so is this guy, and it has Republicans worried. Good. Karma for all of their cheering on (and, sometimes, it's rumored, outright assistance) for Ralph Nader's runs.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/24582429/

Four parties is great. I love four parties. It's three that gets me down. See, I'm not square--I'm just anti-triangle.