Questioning the Nader-spoiler story

[Steve Cobb]

I frequently cite the Nader-spoiler example from the 2000 election. The vote splitting seems to be obvious, and it makes a convincing case for voting reform. But is that what happened? I find this article a bit biased, as the author and publication want to encourage voters to support third parties, but they cite an academic paper.

No, Ralph Nader Did Not Hand the 2000 Presidential Election to George W. Bush

https://reason.com/blog/2016/08/03/ralph-nader-did-not-hand-2000-election

[Warren D Smith]

https://reason.com/blog/2016/08/03/ralph-nader-did-not-hand-2000-election

This article is a ridiculous string of red herrings.
Here is the only fact you need to know:
http://www.rangevoting.org/Flor2000Res.html
Keep those numbers in mind.

Now about the red herrings. First off:
"approximately 95,000 Florida ballots were cast for Nader in 2000, and
assuming every single one of those votes went instead to then-Vice
President Al Gore (which is an incorrect assumption..."
REPLY: We do not need, and never needed, anything even near this "assumption."

"only about 24,000 registered Democrats voted for Nader in Florida,
whereas about 308,000 Democrats voted for (wait for it...) Bush!
Further, approximately 191,000 self-identified "liberals" voted for
Bush, as opposed to the fewer than 34,000 who went with Nader."
REPLY: utterly irrelevant.

"In 2006, Michael C. Herron and Jeffrey B. Lewis authored a UCLA study
on the effect of third party voting on the 2000 election. Among their
findings:
* Only approximately 60% of Nader voters would have supported Al Gore
in a Nader-less election."

REPLY: Thank you for proving my case.
Of course, you have to be able to actually do arithmetic using the
numbers in Florida
to realize that this is a proof, which apparently was the stumbling
block for Anthony L. Fisher.

"So why hasn't there been 16 years of hand-wringing over the thirteen
percent of voting Florida Democrats going turncoat for the Republican
nominee?"
REPLY: This is a red herring. If the question is: "did Nader by
running throw it to Bush?"
the answer is "yes." (Remember, the title of Fisher's piece was

"No, Ralph Nader Did Not Hand the 2000 Presidential Election to George

W. Bush.")
If the question is "are there also other phenomena, some of
them larger, which also threw it to Bush?" The answer is "also yes." The
fact that the second question has a positive answer in no way invalidates the
fact that the answer to the first question is "yes."

These red herrings are actually utterly irrelevant. And I see that
Fisher is the "Associate Editor for Reason.com." Perhaps he should
switch to "unreason.com."



--
Warren D. Smith
http://RangeVoting.org <-- add your endorsement (by clicking
"endorse" as 1st step)