Tomorrow is the day of polling to decide who the members of my state's (Maharashtra) Legislature will be, and with as many as 9 candidates contesting in my constituency, these two questions having been fluttering around in my head for a while.

1. Is there any possible argument against a system of elections where a voter can cast his/her a vote for more than one candidate? I believe they have a system based on these lines in Australia, have there been any problems experienced by it?

2. Regarding the Presidential elections that are fast approaching in the US: just why exactly are the "small" players like Ralph Nader contesting? I couldn't find a straight answer to this question anywhere. I don't know all that much about American politics, but I'm pretty sure that Nader would prefer Kerry being President to Bush. I understand that it is important to be able to make known your opinions in a democracy, but when the post of the most powerful man in the country (and the world) is at stake, isn't this going a bit too far? I do indeed agree with Nader on many issues, but all he seems to be doing by contesting is eating into Kerry's vote.

I hope this thread does not turn into a ver heated argument (after all, CI was dismantled for a purpose), what I want here are just answers.

Regarding Ralph Nader, he is a perennial candidate because he believes he has a message, if not a chance, and that his message will appeal to the voters.

The Republicans love him because he indeed steals votes that would otherwise go to the Democratic candidate, as you suggested, achernar. He used to be the Green Party candidate because of his consumer and environmental protection activism. Today, he is an independent and not affiliated with any major party.

I like Ralph because he is a refreshing critic of American politics even though he would never be elected; the political machinery of the other two major parties is too overpowering.

Out of curiosity, how many times has Nader run for president?

Generally, I like the guy. I'm not really happy with him right now, but I like his message. I wish he'd not run at all this time, but he has a right to.

There's another candidate who runs every four years as well. His name is Lyndon Laroche. Actually, I think he holds the record for number of presidential runs. I read somewhere that he gets 53% of his votes from my state. That's a tad scary considering he's out in left field somewhere.

I voted for Nader last election. I do not believe that two-party politics is good for America. I believe in supporting third party candidates if you believe they are honestly the best choice. I don't believe the Democratic and Republican parties should be allowed to bully voters with threats that their votes will be "wasted" because the only wasted vote is that of a person who CAN vote but doesn't.

I think the Democrats telling people who would vote for Nader that they are really just voting for the Republican and stealing votes from the Democrat is, while possibly not an unrealistic explanation of what is happening, a form of bullying that shouldn't be allowed.

I think EVERY American who considers themselves a patriot and who is concerned with the American democratic process, should re-evaluate how they think of American politics, and should ALWAYS vote for the candidate, regardless of partisan politics, who they think would do the best job.

Of course, I also think that liberals should get over themselves and start banding together like conservatives do. There are plenty of conservatives who rabidly disagree with each other, but they band together for the good of their movement, and (generally) rally behind a single candidate, while we liberals divide ourselves with our bickering and all back different horses, and end up shooting our horses in the feet.

(Trust me, it may seem those two ideas are at odds, but they aren't.)

All that said, I'm not voting for Nader this year. All things considered, I don't think he'd do the best job. But my vote isn't going to Kerry because I'm afraid of Bush being re-elected. Truth told, I think Bush will be re-elected anyway. But just because I think that doesn't mean I'm going to vote for the Bush, lest my vote be "wasted" on Kerry.

Achernar, you're right about us voting for more than one candidate in Australia. I think it works very well and I don't know why other countries don't adopt the system. It's called preferential voting. This is how it works:

Presume for this example that 6 candidates are sitting for a seat. All 6 names will appear on the ballot, and you will number them 1 through 6, for the party you prefer the most through to the party you prefer the least.

When the votes are tallied, if one candidate hasn't obtained over 50% of the vote, then they start counting the preferences. The party recieving the lowest number of votes is eliminated and the 2nd preference of those votes are distributed to the other parties. This process is continued until one candidate obtains a majority. This way, no votes are 'wasted' on a candidate. If this system was to operate in America then most of Nader's votes would have gone to the Democrats.

Here are some sites which may explain the system better than I did:
http://www.abc.net.au/elections/federal/2004/guide/howpreferenceswork.htm

http://www.eca.gov.au/systems/single/by_category/preferential.htm

http://www.australianpolitics.com/voting/systems/preferential.shtml

In Australia everybody over 18 has to vote. I think that it is everyone's duty to vote. We are part of the minority who have the right to have our say. So we should speak up.

Hardly a minority really, the same thing's done in India for the election of the President (though not one with great power). However he's elected indirectly by the legislators and is normally not a political choice as he has very limited power compared to the PM.