Nadar and legitimacy

["Richard Fidler" <rfidler@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Two quick thoughts about the U.S. election:

1. The allegation that Nader stole Gore's election is based on the assumption
that Nader's electorate would have voted Democratic if Nader hadn't run.
However, with the polls predicting a close race between Gore and Bush, isn't it
more logical to presume that those Nader supporters who still thought there was
a significant difference between Democrats and Republicans voted for Gore to
stop Bush? That would explain why Nader's vote was only about half what the
pre-election polls had given him in popular support. It is just as likely that
most of those who did vote for Nader would not have voted at all or would have
voted for other "fringe" candidates if Nader had not run.

2. A president elected with less than a plurality of the vote may be elected
legally, but his mandate lacks popular legitimacy. This will plague Bush
throughout his presidency, weakening his authority. A weak U.S. president is
better than a strong president from the standpoint of the working people of the
United States and the world.

Richard Fidler
rfidler@xxxxxxxxxx