This week on Act Out! host Eleanor Goldfield looks at the question of third-party candidates in America, and busts common myths about Ralph Nader’s “spoiler effect” in the 2000 election.
Spoiler Alert: it’s not third parties. Let’s take a look at 3rd party scapegoating and the real culprits behind lesser and greater evil politics.
Ralph Nader speaks to Truthout on October 31, 2009. (Flickr / t r u t h o u t / Troy Page)
As Kevin Gosztola noted in April on Shadowproof, the myth of the spoiler is getting an unusually intense workout this election, being used against Bernie Sanders and its more traditional targets, third party candidates like Jill Stein.. Gosztola wrote:
Every four years, commentators who support the Democratic Party reflexively invoke the candidacy of Ralph Nader in 2000. They use Nader to shut down debate about support for alternatives to who the establishment picks in the two most prominent political parties in the United States. Nader is also mentioned to stymie discussion of how to democratize elections.
The myth continues to hold weight with voters, despite being debunked numerous times. In 2010, a DisInfo writer, known as “Good German,” collected links to numerous articles dismantling the Ralph Nader spoiler story. They concluded:
So, why do Democrats continue to focus blame Nader and the Greens? It’s certainly easier to vent one’s frustrations upon someone weaker than you than it is to confront powerful, corrupt institutions and a dysfunctional system. And it’s even more attractive if one is part of that system, and if the weaker party could conceivably become a threat to one’s own power some day.
Content posted to MyMPN open blogs is the opinion of the author alone, and should not be attributed to MintPress News.
Why don’t “third party spoiler” supporters talk about the large segment of eligible voters who choose to stay home instead of actively participating in the democratic process? In 2012 only half of the electorate showed up to the general election, and only 30% bothered to cast a vote in mid terms. The issue is not third party candidates, but a great part of the electorate who are so disillusioned with the democratic process that they choose to stay home instead. The two party system is to blame.
If only half had shown up, Romney might have have won! 58% showed up, and that extra 8% represents nearly 10 million voters.
50% and below usually elects Republicans; over 50% usually elects Democrats.
Clinton won with 43% of the vote, owing to the Perot spoiler effect; Bush II with 49%.; Lincoln in 1860 won with 37.5%, a victory made possible by the Dems splitting the vote, in the most participated in election (81%) in our history.
3d parties historically have no power on their own but can with 10% rule in alliance with other parties. In Germany, the Greens, with 8%, governed from 2002-5 with the SPD and had 3 key cabinet posts and phased out nuclear/phased in solar/wind in a revolutionary change in energy policy.
This is how the Green Party will gain power, in alliance. Until then, it’s only power is as a placeholder and possibly as a spoiler (tho Johnson is in the role now). To gain power, the Greens can join with Sanders and they will have 55% of the vote!
It’s too late; it will always be too late if we never start because “it’s too late.”
Progressivism has never been more popular, with 67% approving the label and Bernie beating Clinton and Trump in the polls and beating them badly.
Our REvolujtoin is an ongoing movement: join-or-die!
Thanks again… But I have, and will hit the pavement for Jill Stein like I did for Bernie sanders… But again, if you want real reformation, we need to get rid of our current system – first past the post (look it up if you don’t know what it is) that has landed us with two of the most disliked candidates in history.
I too am voting for Stein tho it has no influence due to what the British call past the post and we Americans call winner take all. What we need is proporational representation, as any other system makes a mockery of “equality” and makes screws up “consent.”
I have written on this often, but we wont get such a system until we already have power. We have to gain power despite the system in order to change it. If you can suggest how we create a proportional system without power, share. This can be done at the state level, as Nebraska and Maine already have it.
If you get 30% of the vote, to give your votes equal value in order to form a foundation for consent, you need 30% representation.
The quandry, how to change a broken system without power…suggesting we must first get power in order to make the changes. Bernie blazed the way….no we need to build on that.
The Germans have a parliamentary system. You can do things in such a system that you can’t in ours. At the very least, we need IRV. We need to rewrite our consitution, but rewriting it now would probably be disastrous. We can do little things with amendments to change the structure of our government and make it a little easier for third parties to play, but it requires fighting the status quo.
Has it occurred to you that the duopoly gets 99% of the coverage so the 3d parties are not allowed to appeal to a broader constituency. Most people get their information from TV, and 3d parties get about 1% the attention of the two major parties.
The 3d parties could reach the disillusioned if they were given any airtime, and the current polls prove this, as STein and Johnson have got perhaps 3% of the coverage, and their rating have tripled.
The lack of exposure is the reason for lack of ratings. To reach the people, we need a free press which does not serve the duopoly/oligarchy but the public. We also need structural changes to make our voting system democratic, as it now favors the minority. And it was designed to do so.
It was designed to insure the rule of the large slave owners like Jefferson and Washington (95% of signers of Constitution were slave owners and traders), which worked for 50 years, as the first 7 Presidents were all wealthy slave owners, Jefferson, Washington, and Jackson in the .001% who had 200 more slaves, the elite of the elite. Minority rule through electoral schemes insured their power………..and today it insures the power of those who were their chief rivals (Jefferson: “Banks are more dangerous than standing armies,” the banks and corporations (the “moneyed aristocracy” that Jefferson warned us of).
So here we the one of the largest slaveowners against the bankers and corporations: minority rule (in the first elections, only 1% were allowed to vote (rich white males)) which was devised to insure the rule of the slave owners is today the power tool of the banks and corporations: we are still ruled by the .01% but instead of slave owners, it is banksters and robber barons.
So we must change the Constitution to end the tyranny of the oligarchs…or if that is not possible, invoke the right of revolution.
Nor are people disillusioned with democracy but rather the lack of democracy.
” A recent study by Princeton University Prof Martin Gilens and Northwestern University Prof Benjamin I concluded:
Multivariate analysis indicates that economic elites and organised groups representing business interests have substantial independent impacts on US government policy, while average citizens and mass-based interest groups have little or no independent influence.
In English: the wealthy few move policy, while the average American has little power.”
“When a majority of citizens disagrees with economic elites and/or with organised interests, they generally lose. Moreover, because of the strong status quo bias built into the US political system, even when fairly large majorities of Americans favour policy change, they generally do not get it.”
That is by design, originally so the rich slave owners could run the country, and later, as slavery was outlawed, the banks and corporations, who today run the show.
John Jay, drafter of the Constitution, slave owner, and Chief Justice explained how the Constitution he helped write worked: “The nation should be run by the people that own it.”
Americans are sick of this tyranny of the wealthy and crave leaders who stand up against the oligarchs and duopoly which supports the status quo.
Our next President will likely be either of two people who are disliked and distrusted by nearly 2/3 of the public, while the guy who crushes them in a head-on meetings by up to 30% and who has a 16 point positive approval rating vs the 16 and 20 negative ratings for Trump and Clinton is left out in the cold.
This ain’t democracy: it’s oligarchy using the rhetoric of democracy. Those who choose not to vote are expressing their lack of trust in the system, while those who do vote have to justify voting for someone they detest with the lesser evil logic which rules when both candidates are evil.
IF the US were a democracy we would have:
single payer (supported by 55%)
universal background checks on all gun sales (92% approval)
legalization for law abiding immigrants….(65% approve path to citizenship)
legalization of pot (60%)
tax hikes on the rich (61%
raising the minimum wage(75%)
cutting defense spending (61%)
and our President would be Bernie Sanders who beat Clinton 15% and Trump by 25% in the polls.
There would have been no war in Iraq, no trillions wasted, no million slaughtered, no ISIS, no perpetual war, no economic collapse, for Gore beat Bush by half a million, which in a democracy would win…..but no!
If we were a democracy where the government was “of,for, and by the people” we would be richer, at peace, and with much more prosperity for ordinary people. But we aint. And so long as you believe the the Big Lie that we are a Democracy you will have no motive to create one.
I think you misread what I wrote. I was talking about the people that continue to push the third parties as spoilers narrative. I didn’t need the lecture as I whole heartedly believe in both Bernie’s and Jill’s platforms. Also, if you really bothered to read my post, you could plainly see that I was criticizing our first past the post election system that has essentially lead to the terrible two parties currently represented, and the repression of third parties.
A careful analysis of US elections shows many cases of the “spoiler effect.”
For instance, in 1860, Lincoln won with 37% of the vote as the Democrats, Douglas and Breckinridge, split the Dem vote. Breckinridge with many fewer votes than Douglas got 72 electoral votes, while Douglas got only 12. Without the rump Southern Democrat run by Breckinridge, Douglas would have won…and US history would have been far different.
In 1992, Clinton won with 43%, as Perot drained off 20% of the vote, the majority from the Republican Bush. Some claim the Perot vote would have gone 50/50 but that is not likely, as Perot appealed more to the right than the left.
In 2000, Nader got 100,000 votes in Florida. Nationally, Nader voters were found to be 60% favoring Gore over Bush. If Nader had not run, Gore would likely have won by 20,000, too much to challenge…..and there would have been no Iraq War, no economic collapse, no Patriot Act.
The spoiler effect is an objective reality, not a blame game. I don’t “blame” Breckinridge for electing Lincoln; I recognize the effect of his his rogue run, which saw him finish 2nd (in electoral, not popular votes) with ONLY write in votes!
The spoiler effect is real: Gary Johnson, who is pulling 10 or more percent is likely attracting more Republicans (the LIbs usually run as Republicans) than disaffected Democrats (who are going to Stein). Gary Johnson may help elect HRC. I do not blame him for that; I recognize the objective result of drawing away voters from the leading candidate, as Breckinridge did with Douglas.
It’s not partisan; it’s not scapegoating: it’s history.
I love Ralph Nader, and I have voted for him, but the fact is that if he had not run in Florida (only swing states are vulnerable to the spoiler effect), Gore would have won.
There would have been no hanging chads, no deadlines, no Supreme Court calling the election. In our votes, we must act morally and strategically to bring about the results we want and not the opposite (ie to allow the greater evil to prevail). If we vote “out of conscience” for a party which changes the outcome of the race, that should be figured in to your decision of how to vote. This only matters in the small group of swing votes, where the spoiler effect is real. In other, “safe” red or blue states, vote your conscience!!
But if doing so brings on war rather than peace, think about it! We are responsible for our actions, and morally, we are obligated to act with total purity but to do the least harm.
The other hidden “spoiler” is those who do not vote, either because of the campaign to show that voting is meaningless (guess who benefits from that?) or thru voter suppression laws which discourage voting. Whether voluntary or part of a legal scheme, not voting often is responsible for who wins. If less than a majority vote, the Republicans usually win; if a strong majority (55% and up) vote, the Democrats always win.
Therefore, those who are persuaded not to vote or not to waste their vote, can determine who wins and thus act as a kind of silent spoiler. That is why Republicans, who are in the minority, seek to suppress the vote.
I do not blame Nader, who thought Gore was equally evil to Bush. But looking back, he was wrong: Bush lied to start a war, while Gore publicly and robustly spoke against his rush to war. Clearly, Bush was more evil, witness trillions in debt and a million civilians slaughtered, which would not have happened with Gore.
We all make mistakes: Nader’s had serious consequences for tens of millions of people.
Vote with foresight, aware of the spoiler effect, and vote in a way that does not betray your own wishes.
The idea of election spoiling in a true democracy is nothing short of oxymoronic. To even suggest such a thing as there can only be two parties is to make a mockery of our electoral system. The spoiler meme is now just as it has always been; a tool of the status-quo elite to vote-bait their way into keeping a stranglehold on the power they have stolen from the people.
That is perhaps true but we are not a “true democracy” but rather than duopoly which serves the ruling oligarchy of Big Money. The spoiler effect in our oligarchic pseudo-democracy is very real: it elected Lincoln, and it elected Bush II.
Our electoral system is a mockery of democracy witness the election of Bush, who had half amillion fewer votes than Gore, of the Senate where states with 1/98th the population of California have the same number of Senators (ie a malrepresentation of epic proportions), and in 2012, thru gerrymandering, the Republicans got 1.5 million fewer votes but 36 more seats.
The spoiler effect only operates in tight races where two rivals who appeal to the same constituency split the vote, as Breckinridge and Douglas did in 1860, while having more votes than Lincoln (who had 37%) lost by splitting the Democratic vote.
You can pretend it’s not real, but it has changed the course of American history more than once.
The spoiler effect, I will agree, benefits the status quo. That is why, in order to win, 3d parties must form coalitions to combine votes instead of splitting. The German Green Party with 8% of the vote ruled with the SPD and made major changes from 2002-2005. Alone they had no power; in coalition they ruled and changed Germany forever. Likewise, Greens who ally with other minority parties have gained power with only a small percent of the vote.
For instance: Sanders, Johnson, and Stein could win by the largest landslide in history since Alf Landon. A green/libertarian party (they have similar foreign policy views) would get into the debates and, if Sanders joined, win big time.
The spoiler effect in swing states is a disastrous result of a two-party system which excludes 3d parties from gaining traction: the media ignores them, they are excluded from the debates, and so the media serves the duopoly as part of the ruling oligarchy.
To end the spoiler effect, we should:
form coalitions
switch to proportional representation
continue to develop our own alternative media.
But to deny its existence is to be naive.
Florida isn’t the nation. Nader took equally — 1 percent — from both candidates, according to Tony Schinella’s analysis. Did you read the linked to articles debunking your theory? If you did you’d know that more registered Democrats in Florida voted for Bush than for Nader. Some 13 percent of registered Democrats voted for Bush. That’s not Nader’s fault.
The study I read looked at how the Nader voters would have voted nationally, and they found in their surveys, that 60% would support Gore; that would give him a lead of 20,000 in Florida. There is no reason to think that Nader supporters in Florida would not follow the pattern in all other states.
Realclearpolitics is perhaps the most objective political website. Read their factual analysis at
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2016/05/31/nader_elected_bush_why_we_shouldnt_forget_130715.htm
“The official Florida tally gave Bush the win by 537 votes (48.847 percent to 48.838 percent), while Nader racked up 97,488 votes. The national exit poll asked respondents how they would vote in a two-person race between Bush and Gore. Political scientist Gerald Pomper summed up the results in a 2001 Political Science Quarterly overview: “approximately half (47 percent) of the Nader voters said they would choose Gore in a two-man race, a fifth (21 percent) would choose Bush, and a third (32 percent) would not vote. Applying these figures to the actual vote, Gore would have achieved a net gain of 26,000 votes in Florida, far more than needed to carry the state easily…….
Florida exit poll, which showed “the results as Bush 49 percent, Gore 47 percent” in a two-person race.
That looks like Bush would have slightly benefited in Florida from Nader’s absence, but that is not definitive either. The Florida exit poll had a sample size of 1,829. Nader’s support in Florida was 1.63 percent, meaning the pollsters only found approximately 30 Nader voters — a sample too infinitesimal from which to extrapolate. (Consider that the official margin of victory was 0.009 percent. One voter in the Florida exit poll sample amounted to 0.055 percent, more than the margin.)
in 2006, professors Michael C. Herron and Jeffrey B. Lewis conducted a granular “ballot-level” analysis of 3 million Florida ballots, because “ballot images directly reveal voting behavior in its most raw form, unmitigated by hindsight, social desirability, or other intervening affects.”
By looking at the partisan nature of the down-ballot choices made by Nader voters, the two scholars estimated that the Gore-Bush breakdown would have been about 60-40. That’s a slightly smaller ratio than found in the national exit poll, but nonetheless a clear lean toward Gore. Herron and Lewis note this means Nader voters were not all left-wing, yet they still conclude, “Nader spoiled Gore’s presidency only because the 2000 presidential race in Florida was unusually tight.”
So the poll which showed a 49-47 Bush advantage (which stretches credulity, as I have been a longtime Nader supporter and voted for him: his supporters were not majority Bush supports):
polled only 30 Nader voters, making its conclusions useless.
What remains is the common sense and empirically confirmed finding that the majority of Nader supports would have supported Gore. You can dispute it, but there is not one reliable piece of evidence to support that view.
JUST STOP with the Nader blaming. Try listening to this video instead. If it doesn’t make any sense to you , then go back to school and learn something about how both statistics and democracy works. Gore did win Florida with the votes that were cast on election day, but all the votes were not counted. So don’t blame Nader. The problem is that our system allows a plurality winner to get elected instead of a voting system were votes are transferable to second and third choice candidates if our higher choices come in last. Look up Ranked Choice Voting and the other synonyms for this kind of voting. Also, it is just overdue the time that we abolish the Electoral College.
Did you read my post: objective political analysis is not blame.
You are bringing up the guilt, leading me to think, since I do not blame Nader (whom I love and respect but who is human and capable of mistakes) for acting on his beliefs, but I recognize, objectively, with no moral pressure, that his belief was tragically wrong.
We forgive those who make honest mistakes, which his was.
It is a plain fact that Gore was not as evil as Bush, and the cost of Nader’s mistake was a criminal war.
I have had fellowships at the top rated public and private universities in the world, which I say only to show how absurd your ad hominem of “then go back to school and learn something.”
What entitles you to make that kind of insult. If you have any integrity, you will apologize and tell me your educational achievements. I graduate PBK from UC Berkeley (top rated in the world based on major awards of graduates and faculty) and earned a fellowship to Harvard grad school, the top rated private university in the world.
In my experience, poorly educated people tend to insult me as a substitute for a rational response; the intellectual elite have always recognized in me a first-rate mind. I did not ask to go to Harvard; my highly respected professors suggested it to me and got me in.
Thanks for the laugh…and where did you get your GED?
Thanks Eleanor, I couldn’t agree more. I have used all those arguments many times before. I got a chuckle over the “Sheeple Show.” Time to make registration and voting mandatory and an infraction if someone does not vote. If someone get a traffic infraction they can go to traffic school, so let’s send people who get infractions for not voting to civics class.
Please don’t post headlines that make it look like you think that Ralph Nader HIMSELF is a myth.
I am a Consumer Law attorney and he was and is my hero.
WELL, IT WON’T BE JILL STEIN! AS A JEW, SHE AND HER FAMILY HAVE TO DIE FOR THERE TO BE PEACE! THIS, ACCORDING TO “TAPATIO,” MINTPRESSNEWS.COM’S OFFICIAL SPOKESMAN.