[Am-info] Re: Nader Vote (Matthew Elvey)

[Erick Andrews]

On Mon, 06 Nov 2000 12:48:25 -0600, Glenn T. Livezey, Ph.D. wrote:

[...]

>You may want to, but there is zero probability that you will reach your
>goal in this election. On the contrary, there is a great probability
>that such votes could be key to a marginal Bush victory. 

I take many of your points, however I'm not so pessimistic.

[...]

>You have every right to vote as you wish. If you desire a Bush victory,
>then either a Bush or Nader vote seems reasonable. But don't tell me 
>I'm wrong for pointing out the price you and Nader will extract from 
>the 95% of us who will not benefit from a Bush victory, if indeed the 
>margin of that Bush victory is smaller than the votes cast for Nader.
>Certainly not everyone who might vote for Nader would otherwise vote
>for Gore (you are a case in point). But I can't imagine the 
>psychoactive cocktail one would have to swallow to change one's vote 
>from Nader to Bush or Bush to Nader. Therefore, the larger the Nader 
>vote, the more likely it is extracted from the Gore vote.

[...]

I think this needs to better qualified, logically.  If you are in a state that
is VERY much likely to go for either Gore or Bush by a wide margin,
I don't see a real impact if you vote Green in any of those states, given the 
5% that Ralph Nader is touted to currently have.  For instance, I'll bet 
my socks that Massachusetts will completely go for Gore, whatever the 
Green Party impact is here.

Perhaps this is what you were getting at, but it wasn't clear to me.

If I were in a state "up for grabs", then your argument may be sensible.

I still hold out some hope for more choice in 2004, M$ or not, Ralph
Nader in 2004 or not.

-- 
Erick Andrews