The mission of the Commission on Presidential Debates is:

The Commission on Presidential Debates (CPD) was established in 1987 to ensure that debates, as a permanent part of every general election, provide the best possible information to viewers and listeners. Its primary purpose is to sponsor and produce debates for the United States presidential and vice presidential candidates and to undertake research and educational activities relating to the debates. The organization, which is a nonprofit, nonpartisan, 501(c)(3) corporation, sponsored all the presidential debates in 1988, 1992, 1996, 2000, and 2004.

Nader’s personal pundits think it is simply to promote the two parties. Where in that blurb does it make any mention of the Democratic or Republican parties?

The main qualifier that the CPD has which would ultimately disqualify Nader is “Evidence of Ballot Access”:

The CPD’s second criterion requires that the candidate qualify to have his/her name appear on enough state ballots to have at least a mathematical chance of securing an Electoral College majority in the 2008 general election. Under the Constitution, the candidate who receives a majority of votes in the Electoral College, at least 270 votes, is elected President regardless of the popular vote.

Nader is struggling to get on ballots in these 50 states. You could certainly make a chicken-egg argument, however, in all planning purposes you have to draw the line somewhere.

So, the title of this post is why Nader is losing my vote. I haven’t seen much evidence that he would be able to proactively change our nation. If a ‘good’ president can accomplish half the things he promises, and if good is defined as being able to ‘cross party lines’, then how much would Nader really be able to accomplish? I am still of the mind that we need to vote for who our conscience points us, but after listening to the emails Nader’s pundits send out, my conscience is pointing me elsewhere. All he is doing is pandering to the same fear mongering McCain and others do without offering realistic solutions that could be at least palatable by all. And for that, I don’t think I can vote for him.