tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5330649540084564012.post7658504253850886683..comments2008-06-14T11:04:00.208-07:00David Braybrookehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04874482146872731484noreply@blogger.comBlogger1125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5330649540084564012.post-58178180724007197702008-06-14T01:24:00.000-07:002008-06-14T01:24:00.000-07:00I'm not sure what's wrong with use of the term "spoiler" here.<BR/><BR/>It seems clear that either Al Gore or George W. Bush was going to win the election. If a person wished to avoid the kind of government that many on the left feared, keeping George W. Bush from winning, and thereby helping Al Gore to win, seemed to be of paramount importance (although Nader disagreed, saying there was no significant difference between the two. When pressed, he gave Bush a "D" and Al Gore a "D+", I hope we no longer have to entertain the question of whether or not Mr. Nader was on target in this assessment).<BR/><BR/>Persuading people who would have otherwise voted for Gore had there been no notable Green-ish option to vote for Nader instead made it much more likely for Bush to be elected. <BR/><BR/>It seems that there is nothing incoherent about calling someone a "spoiler" if they had no chance of winning to speak of, but insisted on taking enough votes away from the center-left candidate to ensure victory for Bush.<BR/><BR/>It's not as if people "should" only vote for the two major parties, it's rather that we could have predicted the very small (but possibly influential) percentage of the vote Nader was going to get.<BR/><BR/>Jay JAnonymousnoreply@blogger.com