here are a number of things I am fed up with in American politics, not the least of which is the Democratic and Republican parties’ tight grip on political power. Unfortunately, it is unrealistic to expect a third party to suddenly come to the forefront and win the majority. Because of this, I have had to accept that my vote for Ralph Nader will probably not elect the next president of the United States.

If, however, we visionaries were to listen to the naysayers who think one should only vote for a person who is likely to win, no third party would ever become a viable alternative.

Voting for Ralph Nader sends a message to the powers that be that we are ready for change, in addition to bringing us one step closer to a more open party system. As exciting and important as it may be to vote for a viable candidate, or to vote against a harmful candidate, it is infinitely more important to me that I cast my vote for the candidate who most closely represents my views. Many people seem to have forgotten this concept, but if I remember correctly, it is the method one is supposed to use when deciding for whom to vote. Ralph Nader is the candidate that my conscience has chosen.

The highlight of Nader’s platform is his commitment to campaign finance reform. The Democrats and Republicans have each offered a decent amount of prattle on the topic, but Nader is the only candidate who has proven his commitment to the concept by refusing to accept "soft money." Despite this self-imposed handicap, he is well on his way to raising five million dollars. This is no small feat given the fact that legally, individuals are only allowed to donate $1000 per candidate.

In addition to this centerpiece, Nader has some fantastic ideas on how to improve the democratic process in this country.

He would institute same-day voter registration to bring more people to the polls, open the presidential debates to candidates who are on the ballot in enough states to actually win, gear our system toward proportional representation and away from the current "winner takes all" state of affairs, and introduce non-binding referenda on salient issues to increase leaders’ awareness of public opinion.

Nader would also like to see the presidential election take the form of instant runoff voting, in which voters rank their top choices. If no candidate were to gain 50 percent of the vote after counting everyone’s first choice, officials would tally the second choices, and so on, until a candidate gained the majority. This would eliminate the fear some have of "wasting" their vote, and it would allow citizens to feel comfortable voting for their first choice.

The environment is my main area of interest, and Nader is by far the only candidate to represent my views. He has a comprehensive plan for combating global warming, something even "environmentalist" Al Gore lacks.

Nader would require that genetically modified foods be labeled and tested for safety by the FDA & USDA.

He is also the only candidate to advocate U.S. withdrawal from the WTO in order to renegotiate crucial trade treaties and ensure that corporate interests do not drown public health and environmental concerns.

In addition, Nader is pro-choice. He wants to bring the U.S. in step with the rest of the industrialized world by instituting a national health care system– a plan all but abandoned by Al Gore, whose goals for health care in the U.S. extend little beyond his proposal that Medicare cover prescription drugs.

Nader plans to decrease the military budget, which, according to Ronald Reagan’s Assistant Secretary of Defense, Lawrence Korb, could be cut by 20 percent without jeopardizing our national security. Nader also has reasonable views on gun control–he is pushing for the banning of certain weapons, licensing of gun owners and mandatory trigger locks.

Like many progressives, I would prefer to see Al Gore in the White House before George Bush. If Bush wins, however, I will feel neither guilt nor regret about my vote for Ralph Nader.

I am not responsible for Al Gore’s weak positions on key issues that are of importance to millions of Americans, and I resent the insinuation that I ought to vote against my conscience to help him make up for it. If Gore can’t earn the votes he needs to beat out the competition, he doesn’t deserve to be our next president.

The best thing about living in America is that if we don’t like things, we have the power to change them. If we all wait for Nader to carry 30 percent of the vote before finally voting for him, he will never do it. But if progressives vote for the candidate they believe in the most, he will certainly come a lot closer.