BS: 3rd Party Presidential Spoilers

Subject: BS: 3rd Party Presidential Spoilers
From: GUEST
Date: 22 Jun 03 - 06:48 PM

Some interesting information--the popular vote totals for 1992:

Bill Clinton: 44,909,889
George Bush: 39,104,545
H. Ross Perot: 19,742,267 (18.9% of the popular vote)

and 2000:

Al Gore: 50,999,897
George Bush: 50,456,002
Ralph Nader: 2,882,955 (2.74% of the popular vote)

Despite winning nearly 20% of the vote, Perot didn't win any electoral votes, because he didn't carry a single state.

We are still hearing how Nader was the spoiler in 2000, but how often do we hear about Perot stealing all those votes from Bush and costing him the election in 1992?

Subject: RE: BS: 3rd Party Presidential Spoilers
From: Rapparee
Date: 22 Jun 03 - 06:59 PM

We did at the time.

Subject: RE: BS: 3rd Party Presidential Spoilers
From: CarolC
Date: 22 Jun 03 - 10:53 PM

Does anyeone really know how the Perot vote would have broken down had they voted for someone other than Perot? Do we know beyond any reasonable doubt that Bush would have won if not for Perot?

My mother voted for Perot in that election, but she would probably have voted for Clinton had she voted for a candidate from either of the two major parties.

Subject: RE: BS: 3rd Party Presidential Spoilers
From: toadfrog
Date: 22 Jun 03 - 11:12 PM

Two states, New Mexico and West Virginia, went for Bush by extremely thin margins. I know New Mexico has a stong, and particularly heedless, Green Party. Born spoilers all. Does anyone know the statistics for those two states?

Subject: RE: BS: 3rd Party Presidential Spoilers
From: Peg
Date: 23 Jun 03 - 10:34 AM

I knew a number of people who voted for Perot who would never have voted for Bush.

I think it was idiotic of them to do so and was very perplexed at the time as to why they'd vote for such a man, I'm just saying that it is not at all clear that Perot was only "stealing votes" (what a dumb concept) from Bush...

Subject: RE: BS: 3rd Party Presidential Spoilers
From: The Pooka
Date: 23 Jun 03 - 01:59 PM

toadfrog - in 2000 New Mexico was indeed squeaky-close; but not West Virginia which Bush carried easily with an absolute majority. Omitting the numerous lower-than-Nader candidates (yeahyeah, I can hear you all yelling there is *none* lower than Traitor Nader :) - the official state stats (from the Federal Elections Commission website) are

NEW MEXICO
Gore, Al D       286,783 47.91%
Bush, George W. R 286,417 47.85%
Nader, Ralph GRN   21,251   3.55%

WEST VIRGINIA
Bush, George W. R 336,475 51.92%
Gore, Al D       295,497 45.59%
Nader, Ralph GRN   10,680   1.65%

But New Hampshire (among some others) was a pretty close win for Bush:

NEW HAMPSHIRE
Bush, George W. R 273,559 48.07%
Gore, Al D       266,348 46.80%
Nader, Ralph GRN   22,198   3.90%

Re the Perot Effect: remember that in December of 1992 Bill Clinton was elected President by a ratio of well over 2 to 1 -- the very comfortable margin of 202 votes, exactly 100 more than a bare absolute majority. Those official stats are: Clinton 370, Bush the Elder 168. (National Archives, Electoral College Home Page)

Therefore the pertinent Perot puzzle is not how many "popular" votes did Crazy Ross "steal" from George Haitch Dubya, but rather, What was the electoral-vote net effect of those states which Perot may have "flipped" to Clinton, *minus* those which he perhaps "flipped" to *Bush*? IOW, if you airbrush Ol' All-Ears out of the picture & redistribute his vote state-by-state, making generous allowance for those Perotistas who would likely have Stayed Home if their hero hadn't withdrawn his withdrawal (remember that?), and thus recalculate the electoral vote totals which are all that matter (remember THAT?? yeah I think we all do now, after last time) -- can you get Bush the First from 168 up to 270, and Clinton (the First:) from 370 down to 268?

I doubt it. But, I agree with CarolC: no one can really know.

Now Meee, I'd admit to yez that I'm fer CT's nice Joe Lieberman -- Our Favorite Son the President -- but I know that Mama don't 'low no Liebermenschen 'round here, so I won't menschen it. YEAHyeah, IknowIknow, he hasn't got a prayer -- well, nowait, that he *has* got, several of 'em I believe; but I suppose his chances are poor, since the Republican nomination is already sewed up. Hoo boy. :)

Subject: RE: BS: 3rd Party Presidential Spoilers
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 23 Jun 03 - 02:41 PM

Looked at from here I'd say it was your first and second party candidates who really spoiled that election.

Subject: RE: BS: 3rd Party Presidential Spoilers
From: Mudlark
Date: 23 Jun 03 - 06:52 PM

LOL, McG...Same view from here as well.

Subject: RE: BS: 3rd Party Presidential Spoilers
From: DonMeixner
Date: 23 Jun 03 - 08:05 PM

"The Glass is too damn big!" said Gallagher about whether the glass was half full or half empty.


Third party candidates may be spoilers but it is their right to run. Don't blame them if if they play by the rules better than someone else.

This was Gore's race to lose. He went into this in pretty good [position and he campaigned like the stump he was supposed to be speaking from.

Don

Subject: RE: BS: 3rd Party Presidential Spoilers
From: John Hardly
Date: 23 Jun 03 - 08:21 PM

I dream of the day the third party candidate wins -- and ends our self fulfilling notion that voting our beliefs instead of a probable "winner" is "throwing our vote away".

Subject: RE: BS: 3rd Party Presidential Spoilers
From: NicoleC
Date: 23 Jun 03 - 09:27 PM

Amen, John!

Hmmm... have we ever agreed on anything before?

Subject: RE: BS: 3rd Party Presidential Spoilers
From: John Hardly
Date: 24 Jun 03 - 12:23 AM

Nicole,
Of course we've agreed on things before -- we obviously have a love for folk music (presumably) or we wouldn't likely be here! :^)

But I'd even go so far as to wish that a 3rd party candidate with whom I disagree would win -- f'rinstance a Nader. Because, until such time as this happens, we will avoid recognizing how broken things are.

(I also don't think one presidential term is likely to "do us in")

Subject: RE: BS: 3rd Party Presidential Spoilers
From: Amos
Date: 24 Jun 03 - 12:30 AM

..although this current one is striving mightily...

Subject: RE: BS: 3rd Party Presidential Spoilers
From: The Pooka
Date: 24 Jun 03 - 12:05 PM

Hi Amos. :) // We're resilient. We survived Nixon, after all. // It's unlikely a 3rd party candidate would win. But, not impossible. I'd guess it would take maybe 35% - 40% of the overall popular vote, but *perfectly distributed so as to carry enough states to assemble the requisite 270 electoral votes*. The fact that it takes only a plurality, not a majority, to elect all of a state's Electors (well, except Maine's & Nebraska's which can theoretically "split" although they never actually have) would benefit a strong--but only a *very* strong--3rd party contender. // On paper at least, I fear such a contender is more likely, or less *un*likely, to be on the far Right than on the purist Left. // Then again, the Bushies have got the far Right pretty well co-opted at present.

Subject: RE: BS: 3rd Party Presidential Spoilers
From: The O'Meara
Date: 24 Jun 03 - 12:27 PM

1. George Washington warned us to beware of the 2 party system. He was right.

    2. H.L. Mencken said "An American presidential election is a thundering battle to the death between Tweedledum and Tweedledee.

    Bring on those 3rd parties. How about reviving T.R.'s Bullmoose party?

O'Meara

Subject: RE: BS: 3rd Party Presidential Spoilers
From: Kim C
Date: 24 Jun 03 - 01:13 PM

As I have always understood it, the idea in an election is to vote for the candidate who best represents YOU, not the person you think is going to win.

If everyone actually did that, elections might be a lot more interesting.

Subject: RE: BS: 3rd Party Presidential Spoilers
From: Amos
Date: 24 Jun 03 - 09:27 PM

Jefferson also fought against the party system, but Madison took the day on that issue.

Kim, I LIKE your idea.


A

Subject: RE: BS: 3rd Party Presidential Spoilers
From: Don Firth
Date: 25 Jun 03 - 04:22 PM

The United States is not set up for third parties. In some countries, the government winds up being a coalition of parties made up of candidates in proportion to how many people voted for whom. In the U. S., it's winner-take-all. With two liberal parties running against one conservative party (or vice versa), the two parties will split the vote and the other party will win.

I can see two possible solutions to this problem:

1) Preferential voting. Under this system, you rank the candidates in order of your preference. If the X Party candidate you really want and voted for (let's call him "Nader") is not garnering enough votes, your vote automatically shifts to your second choice, the Y Party candidate ("Gore?"). You might not be too enthusiastic about the Y Party candidate, but you'd prefer him to the Z Party candidate ("Dubya") by one helluva lot. So although you don't get the guy you really wanted, you don't get the guy you really don't want. I don't know how this system could be brought about; it might take a Constitutional amendment (a slow and laborious process), an act of Congress (fat bloody chance!), or state-by-state adoption, so as good a system as this would be, I wouldn't look for it any time soon.

2) Join the major party that is nearest to reflecting your beliefs and be active. Be vocal. Talk to people. Persuade them. Argue. Debate. Make speeches. Get on committees. Build your own coalition within the party. Grab the party by the nose and lead it in the direction you think it should go. This doesn't have to wait. You can put it into practice today.

"Never doubt that a small group of people can change the world. Indeed, it's often the only thing that does."
                                                                                                                                                   —Margaret Mead

And that small group of people starts with one person. You. Get crackin'!

If you sit around and say, "Let George do it," believe me, he will!!

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: 3rd Party Presidential Spoilers
From: Kim C
Date: 25 Jun 03 - 05:47 PM

But why SHOULDN'T the US be set up for more than two parties?

Subject: RE: BS: 3rd Party Presidential Spoilers
From: Don Firth
Date: 25 Jun 03 - 06:10 PM

To answer that, you have to compare details of the Constitution with similar guiding documents in other countries. Some election set-ups allow for coalition governments, but ours leads invariably to a two-party system. I can't quote the exact passages in the Constitution off the top of my head, but they're in there. To change it would require a Constitutional amendment, although I think the individual states could adopt it if they wish.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: 3rd Party Presidential Spoilers
From: toadfrog
Date: 25 Jun 03 - 10:48 PM

Well, we could have proportional representation, a parliament, and a Prime Minister representing a coalition. That would third, fourth, and fifth parties possible. Or maybe a 10 party system, so everyone gets to vote for somebody who shares his/her exact beliefs. Examples of how this doesn't work are:
1. Italy, which for many years changed its government more than once a year.
2. Germany in the 1919-1933, where the system simply broke down, and Adolf Hitler was able to step in and fill the vacuum.
3. Israel, where the Religious Parties are a necessary part of any government and get endless pork for their consitituents.
4. France under the Third Republic.
Can anyone think of a country where such a system did work?

Subject: RE: BS: 3rd Party Presidential Spoilers
From: GUEST
Date: 26 Jun 03 - 09:45 AM

You just haven't figured out yet how to use the third party properly. In the UK tactical voting for the lib dems was instrumental in getting rid of the Tories.

However you might argue that it didn't make a whole lot of difference in the end....

Subject: RE: BS: 3rd Party Presidential Spoilers
From: kendall
Date: 26 Jun 03 - 10:27 AM

They are all tarred with the same brush.

Subject: RE: BS: 3rd Party Presidential Spoilers
From: musicmick
Date: 27 Jun 03 - 12:16 AM

I sincerely doubt that the religious parties of Israel are providing "endless pork for their constituants". Maybe a boiled chicken or a nice piece of flanken.

Subject: RE: BS: 3rd Party Presidential Spoilers
From: Merritt
Date: 27 Jun 03 - 01:41 PM

I go in 3 (long-winded) directions on the spoiler issue:

1. A look at the detail behind the 2000 exit polls here in Wisconsin suggests that a) 2/3 of those who pulled the lever for Nader in 2000 didn't vote at all in 1996 (too young? disaffected? we don't know) and b) for every 3 potential votes that Gore "lost" to the Green Party candidate, Bush lost 2 potential votes. The assumption of many Dems with whom I've spoken is that Green Party people are wayward Democrats, pure and simple. IMO this is a simple assumption that ought to be looked at a bit more carefully.

Also, while the two major parties may not be identical - and I've met few Greens who say they are - for many GPistas they are close enough as >national political organizations< on a number of core issues/policy arenas - "free" trade, telecommunications/media, welfare "reform," energy, environment, etc. - that many Greens like me see the Green Party as a fundamentally different long-term values/policy choice. I'm not talking about individual DP members or leaders here, but a national party that's consciously pursued a Dem Leadership Council-led strategy of win by stealing center- and center-right issues from the RP since the mid-80s. This DP trend prompts some folks to ask "What's the point of winning?"

On a basic level, many verdistas see the two major parties, again as >>national political organizations<<, to be grounded in the last century, to continue to believe that we'll "grow our way out" of our problems. In contrast, the Green Party sees growth as one of the basic problems we must confront. We understand the serious stress placed on the planet's finite resources and offer a different vision and different solutions.

2. If Democrats really want to build a progressive alternative to the Republican Party, go for it!! Re-engage those Dems who've left for whatever reason. Create a left-leaning politics that is irresistable to the 48% of eligible voters who don't vote. Target constituencies, pound the pavement, work the phone bank, make it happen!

3. Meanwhile back at the thread, Perot in '92 was a huge factor, but not anymore responsible for Bush's loss than Nader is somehow to blame for Gore's 2000 loss. I'm not a Perot fan, but he brought new and "alienated" people into the political process - some of whom are now Greens. He had just as much a right to run as anyone.

It's difficult to build a new politics to replace the two-party box that so many folks live inside of. Some of the barriers & potential solutions for this are laid out above. And every two years, and particularly every four years, there will be a clamor for the Green Party to "get back in the 2-party box." If we listen and buy into that mindset, there will never be a viable multi-party system in this country. And there will never be a viable Green Party alternative to vote for.

Thanks. I needed that.

- Merritt

Subject: RE: BS: 3rd Party Presidential Spoilers
From: toadfrog
Date: 27 Jun 03 - 08:43 PM

Merritt, I have been hearing that same line for about 45 years. Since I was a teenager. From time out of mind, people have been saying "if only there were another party that agrees with me, all those disaffected people who dont vote, because they all agree with me will turn out, and we will have a new era. The problems: (1) There is no reason whatsoever, except wishful thinking, to suspect that all or most of those people agree with you. If you have any reason to think that those 48%, or whatever, want a Left Wing candidate, I'd like to hear what it is. (2) There have been endless third parties, on the Right, on the Left, and in the case of Perot, in the middle. The last time a Left-Wing third party got a respectable showing was before most of us were born, in 1932. At that time, the Democrats were not regarded as any farther "Left" than the Republicans. After Roosevelt, the idea became obsolete.

There are probably one or two issues where most people think both parties are wrong. "Free trade" just may be one of those, as you say. But so far as I can see, people who are against globalization usually are enthusiastic gun owners and fundamentalist Christians who hate abortion and Gay Rights. They are unlikely to support unlimited immigration or paying reparations for slavery. They will not go for an all-purpose "Left" agenda like Nader's. If I'm mistaken, please explain why. Exactly how is an all-purpose Left Wing going to attract the bubbah vote? I'm not just being obnoxious. I'd like to hear someone actually address those questions. But no one seems interested in doing so.

What you seem to be saying saying is, "I am so obviously right that if everyone doesn't vote my way, something is wrong with the system, so if we just jigger the system enough, everything will go right." Well, people who think as you do re-jiggering the system, and somehow we still have problems. We now have open primaries in almost all states, a drastic change since 1968. That was supposed to get all the non-voters engaged, by giving them the candidates they wanted. Presidents are no longer nominated in smoke-filled rooms. If Nader has anything to offer, how come he couldn't win the Democratic nomination by winning those open primaries?

And of course it is Nader's fault that Bush got elected. Bush won by a razor-thin margin, in states where there are lots of Greens. Nader knew knew he was putting Bush into office, and he said so. He said it made no difference. I would like to hear him explain how the war in Iraq made no difference