Ain't presidential politics grand?

First we get the rise of Howard Dean, a centrist politician turned insurgent who gets lots of people excited because he articulates a forceful opposition to Bush's policies and promises to shake up the Democratic Party establishment. Then he gets crushed like a bug by that same establishment along with establishment media, which deems him too ... excitable.

With the Dean's fall comes the quick coronation of the establishment candidate, who doesn't excite anyone but everyone votes for because they believe he alone is capable of defeating the evil Bush. Never mind that New Democrat Kerry voted for NAFTA, the Patriot Act, and the invasion of Iraq (and thus the Bush doctrine of "pre-emptive" war). When our nation most urgently needs a national debate that will vigorously challenge Bush's core policies, Kerry offers caveats. Consequently, Republican strategists will be able to steer the debate toward the grave and gathering danger of gay marriage.

On too many issues, Kerry is merely Bush with caveats. "Almost Bush" is the logical product of the "Anybody-But-Bush" strategy. (Of course, their differences will be magnified and represented as a "stark choice" in the coming months, but read the fine print...)

Amid this sorry situation comes the candidacy of Ralph Nader--Public Citizen Number One turned Public Enemy Number One for daring to assert that we should expect more from our democracy. Nader promises to open a second front of attack to defeat Bush, offering critiques the Democrats will surely be too timid to risk, but a heaping bandwagon of critics can only sow fear that Nader will help extend the reign of the Evil One.

Many of Nader's most vocal (and in many cases downright vicious) critics are progressives who agree with his positions, but believe that Bush must be defeated at all costs, even if it means excluding their own views from national political discourse and choosing Bad over Worse. These critics are in turn denounced by those who argue that we must build real political alternatives to the dismal duopoly at all costs, even if it risks electing the (slightly) Greater Evil.

Divide and bicker. I'm sure the Bush camp is enjoying a hearty laugh over the whole spectacle.

The thing is, we don't have to choose between defeating the greater evil and building political alternatives. We can do both.

First of all, we can eliminate this silly spoiler argument once and for all. Ralph Nader and the Greens did not create the spoiler problem--it's a product of a flawed voting system that allows a candidate to win even when opposed by the majority of voters. This flaw can easily be fixed.

We can simply require a candidate to get a majority of the votes in order to win an election. When more than two candidates are running, a majority winner can be determined by means of a runoff if no candidate receives an initial majority. A runoff can occur without the trouble of an additional election simply by allowing voters to rank the candidates. If no candidate earns a majority of first-choice votes, then the lowest vote-getter is eliminated. Those who had voted for the eliminated candidate would have their votes redistributed to their second choice. This would be repeated, if necessary, till one candidate gains a majority of the votes.

Goodbye to "spoilers." Goodbye to "wasted votes." Goodbye to the two-party stranglehold on American politics.

This simple reform is called "instant runoff voting" and is used successfully in Ireland, Australia, and other places that value both majority rule and the wider spectrum of political representation that comes with multiple parties and candidates. (For a relevant illustration of IRV, see www.chrisgates.net/irv; for more background, see www.fairvote.org.)

You'd think that if Democrats really considered the spoiler problem the deadly threat that they claim, they would work to fix it at its source instead of blaming it on Nader. As long as Democrats consider opening up our democracy a greater threat than losing elections, it's hard to take their protestations seriously.

Okay, but IRV is not going to be implemented before November, so what about this year? Without IRV, isn't Nader still a spoiler?

Not in the vast majority of states, thanks to the Electoral College (another flaw in our democracy). Instead of abiding by a simple, direct, popular vote for president, we have this arcane institution that turns the presidential election into a winner-take-all contest within each individual state. These state victories determine the electoral votes, which are the only votes that count in electing a president. One effect of the Electoral College is that it makes the spoiler issue relevant in only a handful of states, as most states will have clear majority winners. The contest will really be decided in just a few "swing states."

Nader's critics ignore the Electoral College and its implications for voting. Let's review the 2000 election in Washington state, where Gore beat Bush by 5.6%, nearly 140,000 votes.

All those who voted for Nader in our state have nothing to regret. Even if all 103,002 had voted for Gore, he would not have received a single additional vote in the Electoral College.

But what about those voters who knew that Nader best represented their political views but chose to vote "for the lesser evil" for "strategic" reasons?

Consider this: If Nader had received another 20,000 votes, the Green Party in Washington state would have surpassed the 5% threshold that confers major party status, and we would have been one step closer to a democracy that gives voice to a wider spectrum of political viewpoints.

So who really spoiled whom here? Which vote was more strategic?

Will Bush get any more Washington votes this year than he did in 2000? Unlikely. And most states are even more predictable (i.e., less "spoilable") than Washington.

So, instead of trying to silence Nader's voice (representing the views of a significant minority of citizens) in all 50 states, perhaps the "Anybody-But-Bush" Nader critics should focus on persuading Ralph to focus his campaign efforts in the states not considered "swing" (i.e., most of the country). Then they should forget about Nader and develop a laser-like focus on winning those swing states for their non-Bush candidate.

It's unclear how much Nader will consider such strategic concerns this year. He is running independent of the Green Party, which will likely field its own candidate and is contemplating a "strategic states" campaign this year, as advocated by Green frontrunner David Cobb. Nader has so far spoken against such a strategy, but may be more persuadable on the subject than he was in 2000 if the election appears to be extremely close again.

In the meantime, voters in most states around the country can feel free to vote for Nader, or a Green, or socialist, or libertarian, or whomever they feel best represents their views, without risk of "spoiling" an election that is already smelling pretty rancid.

--Lansing Scott, ETS! co-founder, longtime Green activist, and currently facilitator of the Green Party of Seattle