The Nader Effect: Keeping Missouri Red?
Ralph Nader won nearly 100,000 votes in Florida in 2000, far more than the 547 vote margin by which George W. Bush was proclaimed the winner over Al Gore, and he took quite a bit of heat for siphoning off voters who likely otherwise would have gone to Gore.
It's arguable that Nader's presence on the ballot again cost a Democratic candidate a state, this time Missouri. According to the TPM results, Barack Obama trails John McCain by just 5,868 votes, with Nader polling 17,769. Had Nader not been on the ballot, if just a third of his supporters voted for Obama instead, the Illinois senator would be ahead in Missouri as well.
This year no one state could tip the election, so this isn't nearly as visible an issue. But it again highlights the effects of the electoral college, and it is a reminder of the impact even minor third-party candidates can have in a close election.
It's arguable that Nader's presence on the ballot again cost a Democratic candidate a state, this time Missouri. According to the TPM results, Barack Obama trails John McCain by just 5,868 votes, with Nader polling 17,769. Had Nader not been on the ballot, if just a third of his supporters voted for Obama instead, the Illinois senator would be ahead in Missouri as well.
This year no one state could tip the election, so this isn't nearly as visible an issue. But it again highlights the effects of the electoral college, and it is a reminder of the impact even minor third-party candidates can have in a close election.
Advertisement
by just 5,868 votes, those voters probably knew their votes wouldn't have elected Nader anyway.
It was a protest vote. What did they want from Obama, that would have made them reconsider voting for him?
They could have just as well sat at home, but they evidently weren’t that apathetic.
Are the Naderites that far off the mainstream, to have not have addressed 1 or 2 of their platform issues, in an effort to bring them home to the big tent of the Democratic Party?
November 6, 2008 3:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
The right factor to look at is the Nader-Barr effect. Right now, the net there is just a little over 6,000 votes. That's still more than McCain's margin, but might not hold up after all the votes are in.
In any event, don't whine. Obama only won North Carolina because Bob Barr took 25,000 votes and Nader wasn't on the ballot.
But we definitely need to get rid of the Electoral College, no doubt about it.
November 6, 2008 3:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
There are other minor candidates, also - the Constitution Party nominee Chuck Baldwin got a few thousand Missouri votes that might have gone to McCain, too (or perhaps not been cast).
And it's pure speculation how many of these protest voters would have still voted had their choice not been on the ballot.
This does perhaps suggest that Palin might not have been so terrible for McCain, as had he picked, say, Joe Lieberman instead, the Barr vote may have gone up a lot (while his own vote dropped).
November 6, 2008 6:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
We can get rid of the electoral college as soon as we become "The Repulic of America" instead of "The United States of America".
The States are supposed to be sovereign, independent entities who form a central federal government for mutual defense, international relations and other matters related to the common good.
It's why it takes 2/3 of the states to ratify a Constitutional Amendment. It's why we have 2 Senators per state regardless of population. The States are supposed to be as equal partners as possible, not subservient to the central government.
Eliminating the Electoral College and going with a National Popular Vote gives way too much power to those states with higher populations and reduces states with lower population to irrelevancy.
I am a proponent of the States that give Electoral Votes based on % of the vote won. It's not a direct 1-to-1 correlation based on popular vote, but it would better reflect the will of the people without stripping smaller states of their significance.
November 6, 2008 4:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
Egad. Wish I could edit. That should be 75% of the states, not 2/3. It's 2/3 of Congress for an amendment. Sorry for the mix up.
November 6, 2008 4:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
Egad. Wish I could edit. That should be 75% of the states, not 2/3. It's 2/3 of Congress for an amendment. Sorry for the mix up.
November 6, 2008 4:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
As a resident of a small state, I like the EC just the way it is. Without that particular structure, New Mexico would never see a presidential candidate, and for sure our interests would carry little weight with anyone in the parties.
November 6, 2008 5:53 PM | Reply | Permalink