23rd July 2004, 11:41 AM
And so what if they vote for him and "if he wasn't there, gore would have totally won!". I won't even try saying we can't know that for sure, because that's not relevent to my point. My point is that you can't get mad at someone for running just because they happen to "spoil the election". It is the equivalent of going to an auction and getting into a match against another person who looses but ends up making you pay a lot more for the object in the process. That's how auctions work! That's how elections work! People vote for who they want. and even if EVERY Nader voter would have voted Gore otherwise, it doesn't make Nader's existance there wrong. What if Nader DID win (I know, fat chance, but that's hardly the point)? Would you say he ruined everything then? I should hope not. So, that in mind, if it isn't wrong in the case where Nader actually DOES win, how is it SO wrong because this other thing occurs? You have to look at it from a perspective where you don't know the outcome. Is merely running THAT horrible a thing to do? I should hope not!
"On two occasions, I have been asked [by members of Parliament], 'Pray, Mr. Babbage, if you put into the machine wrong figures, will the right answers come out?' I am not able to rightly apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question." ~ Charles Babbage (1791-1871)