Electoral College and Nader

Factual Questions
1

Ok, I looked through similar threads and didn’t find this directly addressed:
RE: a personal quandry as we near the election. . .

Given the assumptions:
a) that people who vote Nader would normally have voted for Gore (I don’t envision much Bush-Nader wavering in most people-- I’m thinking a division of roughly left/liberal versus roughly right/conservative);

  1. and that the Electoral College allegedly reflects the popular vote, roughly, in constituency;

And thirdly, that the College will likely vote only for major cantidates who have a chance in Hell of winning;

IV) The College doesn’t have to choose the same winner as the popular vote. . .

IS a vote for Nader a vote for Bush, in real terms? The handful of people who vote Nader will have their analogues in the College voting for GORE, and not Nader, certainly. So if it were close enough that Nader’s participation really mattered in the popular vote (say, Al with 42, George with 46, Ralph with 8 (just an example-- I’m from Oregon so let me exaggerate my numbers here)), the College vote might rather be different (Al 50, George 46, Ralphie, Oh, scamper along, now).

Does this make any sense, or am I deluding myself, hoping that I can have a bad-faith sort of escape from a conscience vs. praxis personal battle? Any constitutional scholars/ American Government professors here?
No ideologically-driven WAGS, please. I don’t want this to turn into a “should I vote for Nader or Gore” debate-- that would belong somewhere else.

2

All the electors from a state are supposed to vote for the person who wins that state. (Each candidate has a group of electors pledged to him for that state. It’s not like an elector has to decide whom to vote for, since he’s already pledged to someone.) When you vote (for President) you’re actually voting for an elector, not for the actual candidate.

The popular vote for the whole country is irrelevant. Nader is not going to win any states, so he will not get any electoral votes, unless someone else’s elector votes for Nader instead.

3

What Tampa said. But to clarify a bit more, here’s (roughly) how it works.

Say only 100 people vote.
45 of them vote for Bush’s electoral colligians.
44 of them vote for Gore’s electoral colligians.
7 of them vote for Nader’s electoral colligians.
2 vote for Harry Browne’s electoral colligians.
2 vote for Build That Fence Buchanan’s electoral colligians.

Because Bush got the most, only his electors get to vote. Now, once elected, they can cast their vote for whomever they please. How you become one, I do not know. Where all this cheese comes from, I haven’t a clue.

4

You must understand that when you vote in the presidential election, you are actually voting for a slate of electors for the Electoral College. Each party puts up their slate (who cannot be elected officials) and in all states but two, there is a winner-take-all system for electing the electors.

What this means is that the person with the plurality of votes in a state gets his party’s entire slate of electors elected. The electors are generally chosen on the basis of their loyalty to the party, so while they are not legally obligated to vote for their party’s nominee, they almost inevitably do. The rare cases of the electors voting otherwise have not changed the outcome of an election.

As far as voting for Nader being a vote for Bush, this depends on how close the vote is in your state. If you are in a state with a large plurality for either Bush or Gore, it probably will make no difference. Only if the race is very close in your state could help give your state to Bush.

But this depends on your voting behavior, that is, your assumption a. If you would rather not vote at all, rather than vote for Gore, it doesn’t matter. It’s only if you will vote Gore if not for Nader will it make a difference.

In the case of Oregon, it is a close race. The main reason for this is that while it usually goes Democrat, Nader has fairly strong support and so is siphoning off some of Gore’s constituency. So for you, yes you could help give Bush Oregon’s 7 electoral votes by voting for Nader rather than Gore.

5

No. Since Nader isn’t going to win any electoral college votes, as TampaFlyer pointed out, the vote for Nader will be irrelevant.
A vote for Nader would have exactly the same effect as not voting at all. A vote for Bush might actually effect the outcome, so the two choices of votes have inequivalent effects.

Looking at Connor’s numbers, but imagine that Gore had the 45 and Bush had the 44. If the Nader voters then changed to voting for Bush, the state would then switch from Gore to Bush. A vote for Nader is not a vote for Bush.

Whether or not the electors can cast their vote any way they choose varys by state, IIRC. In practice, they generally don’t have to be forced be statute, anyway.

6

By that token, any single vote for anyone would have exactly the same effect as not voting at all. A vote for Nader helps give him enough of a percentage of the popular vote to secure federal funding for his party in the next election.
Additionally, a vote for Nader states a preference, just as does a vote for Bush or a vote for Gore. Staying home doesn’t directly state anything, other than that your preference wasn’t registered or that you had no preference.
In other words, a vote for Nader is utterly incomparable to not voting at all, except that both actions could be viewed in some circumstances as acts of protest.

7

I don’t know why there weren’t spaces between my sentences. Let me try that again:

By that token, any single vote for anyone would have exactly the same effect as not voting at all. A vote for Nader helps give him enough of a percentage of the popular vote to secure federal funding for his party in the next election.
Additionally, a vote for Nader states a preference, just as does a vote for Bush or a vote for Gore. Staying home doesn’t directly state anything, other than that your preference wasn’t registered or that you had no preference.
In other words, a vote for Nader is utterly incomparable to not voting at all, except that both actions could be viewed in some circumstances as acts of protest against the status quo.

8

“IS a vote for Nader a vote for Bush, in real terms?”

I don’t know what “real terms” are but there is no question that if you are in a state where both Gore and Bush have good chances of winning (i.e., getting the most votes and hence getting all the state’s electoral college votes), you DO increase the chances of Bush winning your state by either not voting or by voting for Nader, Buchanan, etc.

Since the electoral college vote of your state could determine who wins the White House, any course of action you take other than voting for Gore increases the chance that Gore will lose and Bush will win.

9

Ok. I seem to have misunderstood how the electoral college works. Hmmm. I thought it was more directly representative. This blows. Why can’t we have coalition goverments like some sane countries do?

10

You can pop over to Great Debates and learn all about people’s differings views on the Electoral College, parliamentary government, and all sorts of things like that.

My theory about coalition governments: Americans don’t like 'em, don’t understand 'em, and dont want 'em.

11

Constitutionally, Electors may not vote for 2 people from the same state as themselves. Dick Cheney, having just registered in Arizona after, what, 8-10 years of Texas residency, may still be considered a Texan. In a close race won by Bush the Texas Electors may not be able to vote for him and we could have a Bush/Lieberman administration.

I’m sure they’ll get along ok.

12

By a degree so infinitesimal as to approach zero.
Let’s say that Bush ends up polling 50 percent and Gore 49 percent nationally, come election day.

If I vote for Nader, Bush wins.

If I vote for Gore, Bush wins.

If I vote for Bush, Bush wins.
Ah, but it’s the electoral votes that are important, you say. Well, it so happens that I live in a battleground state–we’ve been getting campaign commercials and everything!

So let’s say that Bush ends up polling 50 percents and Gore 49 percent statewide, come election day.

If I vote for Nader, Bush wins.

If I vote for Gore, Bush wins.

If I vote for Bush, Bush wins.
In other words–in real terms–no matter my particular vote, the outcome will absolutely, positively be the same. You know, unless 349,495 people in my state vote for Gore, and 349,495 vote for Bush, and it’s up to my Nader-lovin’ ass to break the tie. :rolleyes: (By the way, that’s the actual voter turnout in my state in the '96 election–a whopping 38 percent of those registered.) Given, then, that my single vote won’t make a difference no matter how closely contested the race is in my state, why don’t you let me vote my conscience without giving me crap about how I’m putting Bush in the White House?

Hypothetically speaking, of course.

13

Correct me if I’m wrong, but I thought that constitutionally you also couldn’t have a president and vice-president from the same state as each other. If that’s the case, then the Republican ticket is illegitimate on its face.

14

A similar topic is discussed in the current issue of Discover http://www.discover.com/nov_00/gthere.html?article=featbestman.html

15

Cheney changed his registration to Wyoming, not Arizona. I also doubt that anyone would care much anymore that a president and vice-president were from the state.

I believe the restriction is only on the electors of a state voting for both a president and vice president from their own state.

16

Sorry about the wrong state. I get all those square states out west confused.

Bob T is right about the restriction. It only applies to the voting. Not to the actual residency of the candidates. That is why a close race is needed for this scenerio, so the Texas votes, if lost to Cheney, will cost him the Vice-Presidency.

Bob T…I’ll disagree about people not caring. Strict Constitutionalists (I’m one)will care. Disregard part of the document…slippery slope…yadda yadda.

M.K. Do you mind this?

17

Come on Gadarene.

Let’s assume most Nader voters rank the top three candidates as 1)Nader, 2)Gore, 3)Bush.

So if Bush carries Oregon, you Naderites will bear responsibility for those 7 EV’s going to your third choice.

Similarly in 1992, the Perotistas who were nominal GOPs abetted the election of Clinton.

18

You can’t automatically assume that every Green Party voter would vote for Gore if Nader weren’t on the ballot. Some might not have voted at all, others might have voted for the Green candidate, no matter who they were.

I’d understood that polls had shown that Perot’s votes came more or less equally from both ends of the spectrum. It’s not like Perot had a platform that was distinctly conservative or liberal. He was mostly running against the two main parties.

For those interested, we got our ballots in today’s mail here in Oregon.

19

Gadarene: “Let’s say that Bush ends up polling 50 percent and Gore 49 percent nationally, come election day.
If I vote for Nader, Bush wins.
If I vote for Gore, Bush wins.
If I vote for Bush, Bush wins.
Ah, but it’s the electoral votes that are important, you say. Well, it so happens that I live in a battleground state–we’ve been getting campaign commercials and everything!
So let’s say that Bush ends up polling 50 percents and Gore 49 percent statewide, come election day.
If I vote for Nader, Bush wins.
If I vote for Gore, Bush wins.
If I vote for Bush, Bush wins.
In other words–in real terms–no matter my particular vote, the outcome will absolutely, positively be the same. You know, unless 349,495 people in my state vote for Gore, and 349,495 vote for Bush, and it’s up to my Nader-lovin’ ass to break the tie. (By the way, that’s the actual voter turnout in my state in the '96 election–a whopping 38 percent of those registered.) Given, then, that my single vote won’t make a difference no matter how closely contested the race is in my state, why don’t you let me vote my conscience without giving me crap about how I’m putting Bush in the White House?”

If I understand your argument, no single vote will determine the outcome of the election unless the other votes result in an exact tie which is extremely unlikely so therefore it is extremely unlikely that any single vote will determine the election so the 38% of registered voters in your state who voted in '96 wasted their time AND someone is giving you crap and trying to inhibit you from voting your conscience. I say go for it. Vote your conscience. Don’t pay any attention to those people. You definitely convinced me.