[CUGreens] YOUR VOTE DOESN'T MATTER: It's the Electoral College

[Brett Johnson <bjohnson@sobek.colorado.edu>]

> 
> YOUR VOTE DOESN'T MATTER: It's the Electoral College that Picks the
> President
> For Most Progressives, a Vote for Nader Is Free
> 
> Steve Cobble is an advisor to Ralph Nader's presidential
> campaign.
> 
> 
> There has been a big debate among progressives over whether or
> not to vote for Ralph Nader.  In recent weeks, however, the
> debate has begun to turn a bit nasty, and before it gets
> downright mean, allow me to make one basic point: due to the
> way the Electoral College works, almost every progressive
> voter, or liberal, or "radiclib" (to revive Spiro Agnew's
> favorite epithet) is free to vote his or her conscience.
> 
> Except for a very small number of states, progressives have a
> free vote.  They can vote their conscience for Ralph Nader, and
> help him get the 5 percent he needs to build a new fourth party
> to do battle with the corporate wing of the Democratic Party --
> without "spoiling" the election for Al Gore.
> 
> In at least two-thirds of the country, and perhaps as many as
> nine states out of ten, a vote for Ralph Nader is not a vote
> for George Bush.  It's really a vote for Ralph Nader.
> 
> Here's why:  the president is not elected by the popular vote,
> but by a majority (270) of the 538 electoral votes.  These
> electoral votes are cast by state, and it's winner-take-all
> within each state.  Thus, a Nader vote has no chance of
> "spoiling" the outcome for Al Gore unless it potentially
> changes the outcome within each state.
> 
> The truth is, for 90 percent of the states (including the
> biggest ones), that's not going to happen.  [I'm making the
> assumption here that the Commission on Presidential Debates
> will continue its Microsoft-type tactics, and refuse to allow
> Nader to debate, which will keep him from maximizing his
> potential support.)
> 
> THE IVINS RULE
> 
> Which brings us to the "Ivins Rule," invoked by writer Molly
> Ivins: if Bush or Gore is way ahead in your state, vote for
> Nader; if it's close in your state, then consider voting for
> Gore, to keep Bush away from the Supreme Court.
> 
> In about twenty states, the election is already decided, and
> George W. Bush is going to win their electoral votes.  A
> progressive voter could vote for Ralph without affecting one
> electoral vote in these states.  An African American voter in
> South Carolina or Virginia can vote for Nader without worrying
> about the Supreme Court.
> 
> In another ten to fifteen states, mostly big ones, Al Gore is
> so far ahead of Bush that even a huge fourth party vote for
> Nader would not cost Gore a single electoral vote.  A liberal
> Democrat in Boston or New York is free to vote for Ralph.
> 
> The Gore and Bush campaigns understand both of these truths,
> which is why they only campaign in a small number of swing
> states, day after day.
> 
> CAMPAIGN SPENDING
> 
> Here's one way to prove my point: just last week, the Gore
> campaign went up with a new ad on education, the #1 issue among
> the voters.  The ad, however, ran in only seventeen states; in
> thirty-three states and D.C., the campaign is running no ads.
> Then the Bush campaign did almost exactly the same thing, in
> almost exactly the same seventeen states.  (The Bush campaign
> picked Maryland, New Hampshire, and West Virginia, but left out
> Delaware, Illinois, and Georgia.)
> 
> So, if you live in Arkansas, Delaware, Florida, Georgia,
> Illinois, Iowa, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maine, Maryland, Michigan,
> Missouri, New Hampshire, New Mexico, Ohio, Oregon,
> Pennsylvania, Washington, West Virginia, or Wisconsin, perhaps
> you have a reason to worry about spoiling, at least initially.
> (And frankly, Bush is kidding himself in Maryland and probably
> West Virginia, and is about to give up on Illinois.)
> 
> If you live in the other three-fifths of the country, forget it
> -- even the major campaigns, with their millions of dollars in
> soft money, aren't trying to influence your vote.
> 
> HISTORY
> 
> A better way to look at the so-called "spoiler" question is to
> look at history.  There are sixteen states -- a third of the
> country -- which both Bush '92 and Dole '96 carried, winning
> all their electoral votes: Alabama, Alaska, Idaho, Indiana,
> Kansas, Mississippi, Nebraska, North Carolina, North Dakota,
> Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota, Texas, Utah, Virginia,
> and Wyoming.
> In these sixteen states, clearly the most wasted vote of all is
> a vote for Gore.  A progressive vote for Nader, on the other
> hand, breaks up the two-party monopoly without changing a
> single electoral vote.
> 
> Five other states, switched sides between 1992 and 1996.
> Arizona and Florida voted for Bush in 1992, but Clinton in
> 1996; while Colorado, Georgia, and Montana voted for Clinton in
> 1992, but Dole in 1996.  None of these states are required for
> a Gore victory, and as short as a month ago, none of them were
> expected to vote for him.
> 
> In the twenty-nine states plus D.C. that voted for Bill Clinton
> both times, at least half of them start out so biased against
> Bush (or Texans) that if Gore runs anywhere close to Clinton's
> total, he will win them easily.
> 
> Here's a list of fourteen more states where the outcome is
> already assured (and if not, then the overall election will be
> won by Bush easily, regardless of Nader): California,
> Connecticut, D.C., Hawaii, Illinois, Maine, Maryland,
> Massachusetts, Minnesota, New Jersey, New York, Rhode Island,
> Tennessee, and Vermont.  (The fact is, I would include
> Delaware, Iowa, and Pennsylvania on this list, but the
> campaigns are still fighting over them, so I won't push it
> here.)
> 
> POLLING
> 
> We could also do what the media does every day -- except when
> they are calling Nader a "spoiler" -- and look at the polls.
> 
> The American Research Group just finished its fifty-state
> presidential poll, which they have done every year since 1980.
> Between September 5th and September 20th, they polled 600
> likely voters in each state, for a margin of error of 4 percent
> in each individual state, and 1 percent overall.
> 
> Their overall results: Gore at 45 percent; Bush at 41 percent;
> Nader at 3 percent; Buchanan at 1 percent.  (We should keep in
> mind that with $12 million to spend, Buchanan's totals are
> likely to rise some, and if he keeps spending it on Christian
> radio, mostly at Bush's expense.)
> 
> In sixteen states with 124 electoral votes, Bush has a lead
> beyond the margin of error (even while he trails overall):
> Alabama, Alaska, Idaho, Indiana, Kansas, Mississippi, Montana,
> Nebraska, North Dakota, Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota,
> Texas, Utah, Virginia, and Wyoming.
> 
> In eight more states, with seventy-eight electoral votes, Bush
> also leads, but within the margin of error -- but in only one
> of those states (Colorado, with eight electoral votes, a state
> that Clinton blames Nader for costing him even in 1996) does
> Nader's percentage exceed the margin of Bush's advantage.  In
> other words, in only one state right now is Ralph Nader clearly
> "spoiling" Gore's election.  In three other states (Arizona,
> Arkansas, and Nevada), Nader's total equals Bush's lead, but
> does not exceed it.  So, if you gave Al Gore every single one
> of Ralph Nader's votes, you would tie. Though even Barney
> Frank doesn't accuse Ralph of winning only Democrats -- one of
> Nader's best categories, after all, is Independents -- we could
> also include these three other states with their combined
> eighteen electoral votes, as possibly "spoiled" by Nader.
> 
> Bush leads in the poll in twenty-four states, with 202
> electoral votes.  Of these, one state with eight electoral
> votes, up to four states with twenty-six electoral votes, are
> due to Nader "spoilage."
> 
> In fourteen states with 186 electoral votes, including most of
> Nader's highest-polling states, Gore's lead is beyond the
> margin of error.  These states include: California,
> Connecticut, Delaware, D.C., Hawaii, Illinois, Maine, Maryland,
> Massachusetts, New Jersey, New York, Rhode Island, Tennessee,
> and Vermont.  In these fourteen states, most of them big
> electoral vote states, and states with large numbers of
> progressive voters, Nader could double his percentages tomorrow
> without endangering Gore's electoral college vote one bit!
> 
> In another thirteen states, totaling 150 electoral votes, Gore
> leads, but within the margin of error. According to this poll,
> if Nader tripled his vote in each state tomorrow, the following
> five states would still cast their electoral votes for Gore:
> Iowa, Kentucky, Louisiana, Michigan, and West Virginia.  (Based
> on history, by the way, I would take that Kentucky poll with a
> grain of salt.)
> If Nader only doubled his vote, then Florida, Minnesota, New
> Mexico, Oregon, Pennsylvania, and Washington would still go for
> Gore, while Missouri would be a tie, and Wisconsin's eleven
> electoral votes would then go to Bush.
> 
> CATEGORIES
> 
> Using this poll, combined with some electoral history, let me
> break these numbers into five categories:
> 
> (1) Safe for Bush (17 states): Alabama, Alaska, Idaho,
> Indiana, Kansas, Mississippi, Montana, Nebraska, North
> Carolina, North Dakota, Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota,
> Texas, Utah, Virginia, Wyoming.
> 
> In these states, every progressive can vote for Nader knowing
> that they are not endangering the Supreme Court in any way.
> Indeed, in these states, those FDR New Dealers, McGovern
> liberals, trade union members, environmentalists, and African
> Americans that would support Gore over Bush, but believe that
> the Democrats have moved too far to the corporate side in
> recent decades, should vote for Nader to build up his "hammer,"
> by helping him get his 5 percent to form a fourth party, a
> "watchdog" party.
> 
> (2) Leaning toward Bush (7 states):  Arizona, Arkansas,
> Colorado, Georgia, Kentucky, Nevada, New Hampshire.
> Same basic rule -- in these states, progressives can vote for
> Ralph safe in the knowledge that none of these states are
> absolutely necessary to build a winning electoral coalition for
> Gore.  If this still makes you nervous, and you live in one of
> these states, then follow the Ivins Rule -- watch the polls as
> we approach election day, and if the race (in your state) looks
> very, very close, only then make your decision.
> 
> (3) Safe for Gore (15 states): California, Connecticut, D.C.,
> Hawaii, Illinois, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota,
> New Jersey, New York, Rhode Island, Tennessee, West Virginia,
> Vermont.
> 
> In these states, progressives can not only vote safely for
> Nader, they can each recruit one or two other friends to vote
> for Ralph, secure in the knowledge that George Bush has given
> up (or will give up in early October) on winning these
> electoral votes.
> 
> (4) Leaning toward Gore (7 states):  Delaware, Iowa,  Michigan,
> Oregon, Pennsylvania, Washington, Wisconsin.
> These states are likely to end up in Gore's column, unless he
> badly blows the debates.  If they do maintain his current lead,
> then progressives are secure in voting for Nader.
> 
> (5) Toss-up (5 states):  Florida, Louisiana, Missouri, New
> Mexico, Ohio.
> 
> In these five swing states, the Ivins Rule applies most
> strongly -- check the state polls right before election day,
> then make your judgment.  There are some knowledgeable analysts
> who would move Michigan and Oregon into the toss-up column;
> indeed, some would insist on invoking the Ivins Rule for every
> state in categories #2, #4, and #5.  But even if you follow
> that advice, that still leaves two-thirds of the country
> "spoilage-free."
> 
> Or if you don't trust me, the 9/27 Hotline suggests that the
> race is down to only eight "battleground" states:  Delaware,
> Florida, Kentucky, Michigan, Missouri, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and
> Wisconsin.
> 
> THE MOORE RULE
> 
> Then there is the Michael Moore rule, which always applies: if
> you didn't vote at all in 1996, then you are free to vote for
> Ralph Nader no matter where you live.  You are part of the
> party of non-voters, the biggest party of all, and you should
> come to the polls to help build a fourth party that can offer
> you more choices in future elections.
> 
> CONCLUSION
> 
> When I wrote the first draft of this piece, Al Gore had the
> small lead in the polls mentioned above.  In the few days since
> then, Bush kissed Oprah, and the pundits now suggest he has a 2
> percent lead.  As a result, I moved Louisiana from leaning Gore
> to toss-up, while Kentucky went from toss-up to leaning Bush.
> The point is, for almost everyone reading this, that change in
> the polls makes no difference in their vote's chances to change
> the electoral college! Most voters have no more influence
> right now than they do when New Hampshire is hogging all the
> primary glory!
> 
> Al Gore still has the lead in the electoral college; he has a
> vice presidential nominee adored by both the establishment and
> the media; his opponent is a lightweight who is clearly not up
> to the job, with a vice presidential nominee who is in hock to
> the oil companies in a time of oil price gouging; both
> Republicans are from very conservative states with political
> norms that are well outside the boundaries set by most other
> states; the issues that the public cares about all favor the
> Democrats; and the campaign is being held in a time of peace
> and prosperity.
> 
> If Al Gore can't win with these advantages, it somehow seems
> unfair to blame Ralph Nader for Gore's "choke."
> 
> But if that prospect worries you, just follow these rules.
> Then, even if Al Gore blows the debates and loses the election,
> and even if George Bush does every horrible thing that Barney
> Frank claims (which he might!), your conscience will still be
> clear -- because you will know that it was not your vote that
> spoiled the election, because your vote did not change any
> electoral college votes.
> Instead, it was the foolishness of the electoral college, and
> the lack of proportional representation and instant runoff
> voting that spoiled the election -- but that's another topic.
> 
> I am trying to be specific about states in the hopes that it
> will keep us focused on the question of how to build our
> movement back up, and away from our usual attack mode of
> debate.  I offer these rules as a safety net, in the hopes that
> those who agree with me that Ralph Nader offers us a real
> choice in 2000 will not be deterred by spurious electoral math.
> 
> If it bothers you that you might be a "spoiler," then follow
> these rules and you won't risk it.  If it doesn't bother you,
> then let's spend the next six weeks identifying and turning out
> the 5 percent we need to build an alternative (while taking
> back the House from the remaining Gingrich crowd at the same
> time, and maybe even the Senate from Helms and Hatch).
> 
> I support Ralph Nader because he is a geniune American hero, a
> leader of unquestioned integrity, and a lifelong progressive.
> He is campaigning on the issues that I believe will most affect
> the earth in the next few decades -- the impact of
> globalization on working people and the environment, the rising
> inequality in wealth, and the increasing corporate domination
> of democracy.
> 
> I take my cue from Dr. King, who, in his last Sunday sermon at
> the National Cathedral on March 31, 1968, told this story about
> coming out against the War in Vietnam:
> One day a newsman came to me and said, 'Dr. King, don't you
> think you're going to have to stop, now, opposing the war and
> move more in line with the administration's policy?  As I
> understand it, it has hurt the budget of your organization, and
> people who once respected you have lost respect for you.  Don't
> you feel that you've really got to change your position?'
> 
> I looked at him and I had to say, 'Sir, I'm sorry but you don't
> know me.  I'm not a consensus leader.  I do not determine what
> is right and wrong by looking at the budget of the Southern
> Christian Leadership Conference.  I've not taken a sort of
> Gallup Poll of the majority opinion.  Ultimately a geniune
> leader is not a searcher for consensus, but a molder of
> consensus.'  On some positions, cowardice asks the question, is
> it expedient?  And then expedience comes along and asks the
> question, is it politic? Vanity asks the question, is it
> popular?  Conscience asks the question, is it right?"
> 
> Copyright 1999-2000 The Florence Fund
> 
> This is the gpty-rn-m@greens.org mailing list.
> To unsubscribe send "unsubscribe" to gpty-rn-m-request@greens.org
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Fieldstaff mailing list
> Fieldstaff@lists.votenader.org
> http://lists.votenader.org/mailman/listinfo/fieldstaff
--
# To unsubscribe, send a message to cugreens-request@flwyd.dhs.org with the
# word unsubscribe in the body.  For assistance, mail tstone@flwyd.dhs.org