Ralph don't run?
I voted for Ralph Nader in 2000. It was a protest vote. If Ralph wasn't in the race, I would NOT have voted for Gore or Bush.
Neither is an inspiring leader. Neither deserves to be president.
To say that Nader lost the election for Gore is an overstatement. It assumes things that can't be known. You can't count Nader votes as Gore votes if Nader didn't run. Assume Nader didn't run in 2000. How many Nader voters would have supported Gore? How many Nader voters would have supported Bush? Most importantly, how many Nader voters wouldn't have voted for either of these alternatives and how many wouldn't have voted at all?
The true issue is that neither party has produced a viable candidate for president. Not in the 2000 election and not in the 2004 election. If Gore was half the politician Clinton was, he would have won Florida. He would have won the election.
It angers me that people are so willing to be complacent about the quality of the candidates that the parties are producing. Instead, they insist on a dull form of democracy with its artificial bipolarity. Democrat, Republican, what's the difference?