JANUARY 2, 2005 --

Ralph Nader wants to do away with some of the substance of our federal system. This is one of the themes he suggested in his two day campaign-debt-reducing appearances in his hometown of Winsted, Connecticut, last month.

In this regard, he is joined, of course, by some liberals who, after the 2000 campaign, want to abolish our electoral college method of choosing presidents.

Presidents, of course, are not elected by direct popular vote across the nation. They are chosen by electors from the individual states whose numbers vary
from state to state.

We have the recent experience of the election of 2000 when George W. Bush won with a narrow majority of votes in the electoral college, notwithstanding the greater total of popular votes for Al Gore.

Speaking in Winsted, Mr. Nader pointed
to this result as a democratic anomaly that raises questions, abroad, of the commitment of the United States to democracy, particularly at a time it is engaged in bringing democracy to Iraq.

The Constitution, however, established a system of government part national and part federal that accepted the continued vitality of statre governments within the federal system. The federal system accepts, for example, state-based requirements for getting on the presidential ballot.

In Winsted, Mr. Nader indicated exasperation with varying ballot requirements, noting the need for 100,000 signatures to get on the ballot in North Carolina, while only 300 signatures are needed to run for president in Tennessee.

Perhaps the issue comes down to this: is the country prepared to throw out the federal election system because of Democratic presidential losses?

LPR heard Mr. Nader, at his first Winsted talk, December 22, call President Bush a "war criminal."

LPR did not hear, however, the reasons giving rise to this conclusion. LPR also heard Mr. Nader suggest that Senator Kerry would have won if Democrats did not fight so hard to keep Mr. Nader off the ballot and had accepted Mr. Nader's advice to dispense with campaign
consultants.

LPR did not hear Mr. Nader refer to Dermocrats and Republicans as
tweedle-dee and tweedle-dum but he clearly indicated his view that Democrats, as well as Republicans, are beholden to their corporate donors, with both parties
intent in controlling our politics.

Mr. Nader called for replacing the bipartisan presidential debates commission with a nonpartisan commission. He could, of course, cite his exclcusion from the presidential debates as indication of the exclusionary aspect of the current debates system.

And yet, with all the obstacles, disappointments -- even humiliations -- Mr. Nader cited the 89 votes he got in
Winsted as one humiliation -- he did manage to run for president.

He told his audience, December 23 -- the second evening -- that the main thing is to fight and fight again.

But for what purpose? The second evening, Mr. Nader offered his view that the Declaration of Independence has greater importance to us than the Constitution.

Yet, the Declaration of Independence opposes use of officials to harass the people.

It is not clear to LPR, from the two Nader talks in Winsted, that he sees liberals, as well as Bush appointee, as source of harassment upon the people.

In this regard, LPR never feared John Ashcroft. But Parking Violations in NYC
and elsewhere -- that is another matter. (LPR has yet to hear a politician in New York City seek office on a pledge to raise parking fines.)

The first evening, a man who had driven from Providence, Rhode Island asked if Mr. Nader would be willing to lead an independent political movement.