Ralph Nader

“Crusader Nader Plays Low-Key, Low-Budget Spoiler” (June 18) accused Ralph Nader of spoiling the election for Al Gore. You can’t spoil something that’s already rotten. Most Democrats would vote for Nader if they knew their Supreme Court history better. Myth 1 is that Gore’s choices would be better than George W. Bush’s. Bill Clinton’s appointment, Stephen G. Breyer, has consistently been as or more pro-big business than any Republican appointee. Myth 2: Bush’s appointees would lead to the court overturning Roe vs. Wade. If that were true, the court would have done so several years ago, when they had seven conservative judges on the bench.

If there was ever a presidential election where there was less of a difference between the two evils, it’s this one. If there was ever a time to vote one’s hopes and ideals and to start a real progressive third party, it’s now.

KAREN EHRLICH

Panorama City

*

A vote for Nader is a vote for Bush. Can’t everybody see the inanity of this system? A politician’s power should be proportional to how many votes he gets. Six candidates should be on the ballot--Bill Bradley, Pat Buchanan, Bush, Gore, John McCain and Nader. They should form a six-person co-presidency, sharing the power in proportion to their support among the electorate. With six co-presidents, probably 80% to 90% of the people would have someone they liked in the highest office of the land. Liberal and conservative points of view would be heard in making policy.

Let’s stop excluding whole political philosophies by shutting out candidates who sometimes lose by the narrowest of margins. Six heads are better than one. Each of these men except Nader is flawed in some way, but by discussing the issues together they would often reach reasonable conclusions. Why must we continue with our winner-take-all system?

ROGER SKUTT

Los Angeles