You should read what you write. You did write that Ralph Nader won 2.7% of the electoral votes. You wrote it, or you copied it from somewhere, I don't know, but you posted it here as if it were true, and then said you never said it. I'll show you again, but you really should be far more familiar with your own posts than I am. This time, I will add emphasis to the key parts. Look closely:
Remember writing that now?
You're right, it does say that (it says it on Wikipedia, the summation of the information I'd read, but didn't catch that where it said "electoral" it should have read "popular." If you'll recall back to my post I invited you to google the math and said specifically that I'd copied the summation from Wikipedia. None of that had anything to do with the argument I was making- I knew Nader didn't garner any electoral votes, that wasn't even part of my point. So what you highlighted was the only
irrelevant part of the post, that
one sentence, but way to catch it- take it up with Wikipedia.
Then you should trust Bbucko since you were not likely paying attention to this race at the time.
He just got finished telling me that Al Gore won the popular vote in New Hampshire. Are you sure that's who I should be trusting? (No offense Bbucko, you seem like a genuinely nice guy.)
Gore lost this all on his own. People want a scapegoat, but the fact is people voted for Nader because they liked him better than Gore. Would most have voted for Gore if not given an alternative? Sure. Myself included.
Then how is this conversation not over? That's what I've been trying to get across this entire time. While DazedandConfused isn't incorrect when he says that outcome can't be proven, it can be logically deduced.
Also, let's not pretend everyone honestly believes Bush actually beat Gore by 500 votes in Florida. I know a lot of people who still believe both of Bush' selections were stolen.
I know a lot of those people too. Frankly, I think if I read more on the subject, I'd probably be one of them... but I try to give off Fox Mulder vibes as little as I possibly can so I leave it alone (what good does it do now anyway?) I'm going by the numbers on the books as they stand now.
When you cast your popular vote, you are not voting for a candidate, you are voting for a party. If the party gets the most votes, their electors get to vote. Please read the constitution (see amendment 12). If you do not know how this works, you should, some might argue, not be voting at all.
Have I said something to make you think I'm drooling into a bucket when it comes to understanding how the Federal government works in regard to elections? Was there any chance I'd live in this country, be politically active locally, and post in this forum without realizing what you just wrote?
Are you diabetic too? Gore won the popular vote, and the electoral vote in my state (NY), as I said. I felt and continue to feel quite pleased with my own particular vote.
I am not and no one was arguing about
your state, we were talking about New Hampshire. Seriously, orange juice or something?
Are you reading the same things I am writing?
With you that's kind of a high wire act isn't? You really have to thread the needle since, right now, you're saying this
I greatly preferred Nader to both Bush and Gore.
But a handful of posts ago you said this;
My vote was an attempt to get the Green Party enough votes to "legitimize" them, and get their next presidential candidate federal funding for campaigning. This wasn't because I thought the party was so great. After all, I'm not a member. This was because I felt, and still feel that freedom equals choice, and under a two-party system, there is seldom and choice.
So which was it? An attempt to legitimize an illegitimate party that you weren't even all that big a fan of (not being a member and all) or because you greatly preferred Nader to the alternatives?
Three parties is not much better than two. There used to be half a dozen at any given time. Now that was variety. Three would be a good start though.
On this we agree. It should start with a strong and legitimate candidate not with a party that proposes a candidate with absolutely no chance of winning. Honestly, I think this debate ended about three posts ago. Whatever it is you disagree with me on... you've agreed with the primary and fundamental point I was trying to make early on when you said-
Would most have voted for Gore if not given an alternative? Sure. Myself included.
JSZ