To the Editor:

Mr. Goldband’s editorial shows an astonishing ignorance of basic facts not only of the 2000 election but our current political situation. While Mr. Goldband provides us the final voting tallies in Florida during the 2000 election where 537 votes separated George W. Bush and Al Gore, he neglects to mention that Nader won over 97,000 votes. He conveniently places the blame on a “cold war era restriction” but the fact remains that if even one percent of votes that went to Ralph Nader had gone to Al Gore, George W. Bush would not have become president. Four years later, with the nation just as closely divided, even a weaker version of Nader could easily be enough to tip the election. To be fair, Nader’s run in 2000 did interject numerous important issues into “mainstream” politics- the most notable of which being free trade and campaign finance reform, but it is difficult to see what, if any, issues Nader will bring to the table that are not being addressed by the Democrats already. Moreover, as Peter Beinart wrote in the New Republic this week, Nader’s 2004 run as an independent will not only dilute the Democratic vote, it will split the Green Party’s far-left vote, prevent it from getting the two percent needed to stay on the ballot in 2008, and could easily push it back to obscurity after its steady rise since 2000. For these reasons alone it appears that if Mr. Goldband truly appreciates the variety of opinion that third parties give to the electorate, not to mention if he wishes President Bush to leave office in 2004, he should not support Nader’s decision to run.

Sincerely,Nikhil B. Baliga