Since the founding of our country, our government has been built around the fact that, at any given time, politics have generally been dominated by two parties – currently, the Democratic and Republican parties are enjoying their popularity, while parties like the Whigs have once been strong. In recent years, so-called “fringe” groups, third parties like the Greens and Libertarians, have been gaining members; a prime example of the newfound power of these political parties can be seen in our two most recent presidential elections, in 2000 and 2004. Past candidates, such as H. Ross Perot in 1996 and James Birney in 1844, have had a clear impact on the outcome of their elections. However, no third-party candidate in recent years has invoked as strong a reaction as Ralph Nader. Nader's decision to run in 2000 and 2004, despite evidence that he would adversely effects the Democratic candidates, made it clear that our current electoral system may not be equipped to deal with a third-party candidate who refuses to concede or allow manipulation of votes to appease another candidate. Nader's obstinacy, while frustrating to some, perhaps will pave the way for voting reformation in the near future.
[...] Assuming that half of their supporters, disappointed by their withdrawal, refuse to vote, and the other half vote for the major party candidate they prefer, the totals would look something like: Bush - 2,921,532 to Gore - 3,009,721. It is absolutely inarguable that the presence of third-party candidates in Florida determined the outcome of the entire presidential election in 2000; most outraged voters were quick to blame Nader personally, however it seems as though it is a shortcoming due to our electoral system when the winner of the popular vote must concede. [...]
[...] round to 258 Green. round to 7 after determining bonuses: Bonus awarded to Rep. = to Dem. = 11, to Green = for totals: Rep. = 263 Dem. = 269 Green = 6 (detailed chart that works out general idea of process by state found in Leip's article) As an example of the process itself: Colorado State 2000 Election Bush: PV 8 state EV's) x 0.508 = round to 4 + EV = 5 Gore: PV 8 x 0.424 = round to 3 Nader: PV 8 x 0.053 = round to 0 There is one EV left to allocate. [...]
[...] In 2004, Nader's presence in the election was not as negative a complication; it seems as though voters were more wary of casting their votes for a fringe candidate after the upset in 2000. This year, Bush was legitimately re-elected, with a margin over John Kerry; even if we attributed every single vote Nader received to Kerry, assuming the same hypothetical as above, Bush would still emerge as the victor. So we can see that in 2004, voters were either fed up with Nader, or were casting insincere ballots in an attempt to support their second choice. [...]
[...] It is historically inarguable that third party candidates have hugely influenced presidential elections in the past; Nader is not the first or most striking instance, but it is one that our current voters can sympathize with. The controversy has helped many citizens, as well as politicians, learn more about the electoral college and the issues surrounding it. George Lakoff defines a Progressive as someone who believes that “Government does what America's future requires and what the private sector cannot do It is the job of government to promote the building and maintaining of public infrastructure” (91). [...]
[...] The clearest examples of third party candidates having a major influence in a presidential election came in 1912 and 1992, with Theodore Roosevelt and Ross Perot, respectively. In 1912, Socialist candidate Eugene Debs and Progressive / Bull Moose candidate Theodore Roosevelt both astounded their rivals by gaining large percentages of the popular vote. Debs received of the popular vote, but 0 electoral votes (electoral college votes); Roosevelt, however, got a whopping of the popular vote and thus earned 88 electoral votes, the most ever by a third-party candidate (Moore). [...]
APA Style reference
For your bibliographyOnline reading
with our online readerContent validated
by our reading committee
