Virtually all major news media, when they refer to Ralph Nader’s 2004 showing, claim that he got .3%.
Actually he got .4%. More exactly, he got .381%. It is convention to round to the nearest digit. Thus, in 1992, Ross Perot got 18.9%. The media always says he got 19%. Quite sensibly, they never say he got 18%.
The only known news source that has the Nader percentage from 2004 as .4% is Ron Gunzberger’s www.politics1.com.
The 5th circuit will hear the Mississippi Democratic Party case on March 5. This is the case over whether the party may close its primary to people who are not willing to say they are bona fide Democrats. The prior court date has been March 6. Thanks to Steve Rankin for this news.
Green Party of Michigan v Land has a hearing in U.S. District Court on March 26. This is the case over whether it violates the U.S. Constitution to give the list of primary voters only to the parties entitled to their own primary. The judge had issued a Temporary Restraining Order on February 28, so that the list will not be distributed to anyone before the case is resolved.
The U.S. Supreme Court hears Riley v Kennedy on March 24. This is a case over the interaction between the federal Voting Rights Act’s pre-clearance provisions, and the power of state courts to disregard that pre-clearance procedure for its own opinions. The underlying issue is whether there should have been a special election to fill a vacant County Commission seat, or whether the Governor could fill the vacancy by appointment. Law Professor Pam Karlan of Stanford is arguing on behalf of the voters who brought the lawsuit.
The Philadelphia News has this story. Last week, the Pennsylvania Attorney General said he is filing criminal charges against a former Pennsylvania House member for forging names on her 2006 primary petition. She did not run for re-election in 2006, after problems with her petition were revealed in 2006. She needed 300 valid signatures.
It should be noted that no Pennsylvania law official ever charged anyone in the 2004 Ralph Nader petition drive with a criminal forgery complaint. Also no one ever charged anyone associated with the Carl Romanelli 2006 petition with criminal forgery charges.
Meanwhile, two Pennsylvania House members running for re-election this year are also facing challenges that allege forgeries. Thanks to Larry Otter for the link.
Although the U.S. Supreme Court put out two decisions on Monday, March 3, it did not release any election law decisions. There will probably be decisions on March 4.
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.
