Nationally, Nader has been promoting the idea that there is no difference between Bush and Gore. Not only is this claim patently false, it's glib and lazy and not worthy of Nader or his supporters. Naderites and others who truly believe there is no difference should contemplate how issues they support would fare under a Bush presidency. There's a compelling case to be made about future U.S. Supreme Court appointments, and the prospect of a thorough dismantling by Bush of many of the causes and programs Green Party members champion through their support of Nader. A scheme has sprouted up, over more than half a dozen Internet sites, allowing voters in tossup states who want to vote for Nader to swap their votes with others in sure-thing states like Texas.
Voting is a meaningful act, undertaken by too few.
Strategic voting, or voting for someone you don't really support just as a means to an end, could be argued as a bigger waste of a vote than one for Gore in Texas. Nader himself has said that no candidate is entitled to votes, and that each nominee has to earn his own. Yet, there is something disingenuous about his tacit advocacy of bartering votes, particularly since the endgame is money. Granted, federal campaign funds would help build the Green Party and spread the word. There are many voters who believe in Nader's message, and that he has done many great things for this country.