The San Francisco Chronicle of March 2 has an interview with Matt Gonzalez, this year’s vice-presidential candidate teamed with Ralph Nader. According to the newspaper story, Gonzalez said “if Nader can be blamed for taking votes from Al Gore, it’s just as fair to blame Ross Perot for stealing support from George H. W. Bush and swinging the 1992 election to Bill Clinton. You have to be fair. Both sides have benefited from this.”
When Ralph Nader has been pressed on this point about the 2000 election, he says that there were many other causes of Al Gore losing. Interviewers never seem smart enough to respond to Nader that all complex events have multiple causes, but that the Nader campaign was one of those causes.
As to the point about Ross Perot’s 1992 race being one of the causes of Bill Clinton’s 1992 victory, there are those who say that exit polling does not back up this claim. But they forget about the October 1992 debates. Ross Perot was in all 3 presidential debates that month. Those debates had huge viewership. In all 3 debates, Perot constantly was very critical of George H. W. Bush, and never criticized Bill Clinton. Minor party and independent candidates can influence the outcome of elections in many ways. The effect of Perot’s strong remarks in the debate surely persuaded millions of people who liked and trusted Perot, to vote for Clinton and not for Bush.
But, as the editor of the Wisconsin State Journal, points out Buchanan spoiled the election for Gore.
There is only one sure way to stop spoiling and that is to stop voting. The entire premise of voting is to spoil.
The other way to stop spoiling is to have (IRV) instant runoff voting ( http://www.fairvote.org ).
-Eddy
I disagree that Buchanan “spoiled” Gore’s chances. The Palm Beach County Nov. 2000 ballot was so constructed that any minor party presidential nominee who happened to be placed in position #6 would have the same effect on Gore. A terrible ballot design problem is not the political effect “spoiling” means.
The effect of Perot in the debates “surely presuaded”
millions of people to vote for Perot, instead of
either Clinton or Bush.
As an active participate in Perot 92, it was quite clear
there was a massive coalition of citizens from both sides of the aisle as well as independents.
Properly citing the exit poll(s), which confirmed this very point, and then asserting an opposite unsupported conclusion, is in contradiction to the evidence.
Matt was likely speaking about the spoiler effect in general, rather than agreeing that Nader cost Gore the 2000 election.
If you still think Nader spoiled it for Gore, read the research of political scientist Solon Simmons. His data indicate that Nader’s 2000 run mobilized people who otherwise would not have voted, and that a good fraction of those people then switched to Gore as the election neared. So Nader’s net effect in 2000 was to INCREASE Gore’s vote tally — not decrease it.
This is consistent with Nader’s poll numbers, which were much higher earlier in the campaign (was it 4%?) than his actual vote total (well under 1%).
–See Simmons’ paper here:
http://www.uwosh.edu/political_science/word/Wisconsin_Political_Scientist_Summer_2004.doc
I mixed up Nader’s 2000 and 2004 vote tallies. But Nader’s 2000 vote tally (under 3%) was still well under his poll numbers earlier in the campaign (4%-5%). This is consistent with many Nader supporters going over to Gore, increasing Gore’s vote tally.
I think that the best solution would be to have Instant Runoff Voting. But looking at a more realistic level, we need to fight for Presidential Election Reform by lowering the number of signatures to get on the ballot to a more considerable number, allowing all candidates that have ballot access in enough states to win an Electoral College majority (but at least 25 states) to be given fair coverage and invited to the debates, etc. And allocating Electoral Votes by using Instant Runoff Voting, by either giving them to the candidate that beats every other candidate or a candidate that has 50%+1 of the votes.
Richard,
I was referring to one state, and you’re right it probably would not have spoiled it nationally. But, we should also be honest about the other side of spoiling. It is actually the votes of Nader, Greens, and all other parties being thrown away, not counted etc. What we should be mad as hell about is third party voters in the final analysis are disenfranchised. We can only have a spoiler, if certain voters are disenfranchised.
Matt is being intellectually honest, and good for him for pointing out that this works both ways, e.g. Tim Johnson being reelected to the senate in 2002 from South Dakota because there was a Libertarian candidate in the race, or the Democratic congressman a few years back (I forget which race it was) who was reelected thanks to a Constitution Party candidate in the race.
Let’s not forget the electoral votes of Iowa, New Mexico, Oregon, and Wisconsin that went to Gore instead of Bush in 2000 because of so-called “spoiling.”
Matt is right when he says that Democrats can’t have it both ways. If they want to be able to whine about one circumstance, they have to be willing to extend thanks for the other circumstance, and to date no Democratic leader of whom I’m aware has ever done so.
I find it very unfortunate when a Website like BAN decides to join the chorus when the Dominant Parties decide to strike up the “spoiler cry” music.
It is a little known fact that most of the “Alternative” Weeklies are owned by the Heinz Family and all of them are hacks for the Democrat Party Machine. The article by Harold Meyerson of the LA Weekly comparing Nader to Fidel Castro wreaked with hideous Red-Baiting when in point of fact Nader has never at any point in his life advocated the abolition of the current economic order.
So Matt Gonzalez gave an answer that can be interpretted as legitmizing the “Spoiler” argument. It is nonetheless a stretch and begs the question of why stealing votes between dominant parties a legitimate pursuit but when a Third Party does it becomes a deceitful and treacherous endeavour ?
Richard the first voices are starting to weigh in on the “spoiler” name calling campaign and it’s pretty clear the American Public has had their fill of it. Listen to what Jacob Freeze posted in response to the Ed Garvey piece that surfaced on Commondreams last week:
Yesterday I heard Obama say “it’s time to write a new chapter of American history†and it was one step over the very last line of meaningless bullshit for me…
I’ll vote for a door-knob or a box of toothpicks before I waste another vote on a Democrat.
I’ll vote for a hatbox with a severed head in it before I waste another vote on a Democrat.
I’ll vote for a paper-clip under my refrigerator before I waste another vote on a Democrat.
It isn’t a choice between Nader and the Democrats!
It’s a choice between Nader and a plastic spoon with ants on it!
It’s a choice between Nader and four broken pencils!
It’s a choice between Nader and a 1988 Oklahoma license plate!
It’s a choice between Nader and nothing!
There is alot of breaking news to be covered without sinking into the mud.
The problem with a 1988 Oklahoma license plate is that the signature problems would be too great there. Besides, you have to be 35 to run for President.
The Buchanan argument falls apart when you realize that a Reform Party candidate for congress received a higher percentage than Buchanan did in Palm Beach County. It could be argued then that Gore took votes from Buchanan!
LOL……Larry, you’re killing me. You’re pretty funny for a Republican. 🙂
I often ask people that subscribe to the “wasted vote theory”, if you voted for the person that finished second, didn’t you waste your vote, too?
This normally confuses them, because they have no answer.
I find it ironic that a candidate that wasn’t important enough to participate in the election (debates) wound up influencing it. Talk about having it both ways.
I find it ironic that a candidate that wasn’t important enough to participate in the election (debates) wound up influencing it. Talk about having it both ways.
Darryl: This is a very good point and one that is rarely brought up. In a winner-take-all system a miss is as good as a mile, as my mother used to say.
I, too, occasionally ask people if they voted for McGovern in 1972 or Mondale in 1984. Those votes were absolutely wasted, if all you’re concerned with is whether or not the candidate has a realistic chance of winning, because those two guys sure didn’t. I always get dead silence as a response.
Wow! Its my candidate’s fault that your candidate couldn’t convince enough voters to vote for him. Blame it on cable TV – when was the last time some one received a vote count higher than the number of registered voters who stayed home and watched TV. Spoiler/stealing votes could only possibly be a valid argument when there is 100% voter participation. Even then it takes massive arrogance to essential claim you own the votes.
To David Gaines:
In 1972, I voted for Sen. George McGovern for president even though I was deeply sympathetic to Dr. Benjamin Spock, the presidential nominee of the Peace and Freedom Party/People’s Party.
In 1984, I voted for Ms. Sonia Johnson, the nominee of the Peace and Freedom Party/Citizens Party (after working for Senator Gary Hart in the Democractic Party primay in Califonria).
Both candidates (McGovern and Sonia Johnson) lost; however, my votes were not “wasted” – I remain very proud of them! I know that you agree with me about the importance of voting one’s convictions.
Problem you and that idiot Nader fail to realize is that by taking progressive votes (and yes I do consider it a “taking”) from Obama, you propel a conservative agenda forward. That agenda means the continuation of an endless war in which people are dying. Its not about your meaningless abstract objections. The blood of those soldiers and Iraqi civilians is on your hands and particularly the hands of Nader who gave us Bush to begin with. If you candidate has no realistic chance to win the electoral college contest, his participation is a pointless exercise of ego. That Nader would choose our ruin under McCain rather a partnership with Obama is a bloody act of naricissm. You all are so damn self righteous – lets see if you have the courage to make these arguments to the families who lost their loved ones forever so you and Nader can continue your “oh so important” war against Walmart and Microsoft.
The evidence from 2004 shows that Nader did not hurt Kerry. The three leading polling companies in the US gave extra questions when they found a Nader voter. See the Oct. 22, 2004 Washington Post, front page. The pollsters found that Nader voters, to a slight degree, were more likely to vote for Bush than for Kerry. Also the election returns for Nader show this. Alaska was Nader’s best state in 2004. His best county in the nation was a Republican county in Utah. In three-fourths of the states in which Nader was on the ballot, his best county was more pro-Bush than that state as a whole.