[SfN] Fwd: Nader vs Gore in the November Vote

[Arun Bhalla]

The Moore Rule is the best because Moore rules.

----- Forwarded Message

Maximizing Ralph: The Free Nader Vote
Don Hazen, AlterNet
October 10, 2000

-------------------------------------------------

No issue has dominated liberal and progressive political debate more this
election cycle than the Gore/Nader dilemma. Many pages of rhetoric and
much public hand-wringing has gone into deciding who to vote for,
especially in lefty magazines like The Nation and In These Times, on
progressive web sites like TomPaine.com and NewsforChange.com, and in
public gatherings like the big Nation event in LA during the Democratic
Convention and a recent conference in New York called "Independent
Politics in the Global Age."

The Nader vote is risky, according to the conventional wisdom, because it
could be a vote for Bush, who would turn back the clock of social
progress. The Gore vote is the safe one, the infamous "lesser of two
evils." Voting safe suggests protecting such cherished goals like worker's
rights and a women's right to chose.

But is this conventional wisdom correct? Must we choose between idealism
and pragmatism? Must we fall back to a candidate we don't want, when there
is a candidate who is articulating virtually every issue we care about
with clarity and intelligence? The answer is a clear no -- the Nader/Gore
dichotomy is a big exaggeration. Here's why.

The overwhelming majority of states are shoe-ins for either Bush or Gore.
In fact, their campaigns have already decided that more than 35 states
where there are significant leads for one candidate aren't worth fighting
over, and their voters don't deserve a nickel's worth of political ads. In
New York, for example, Gore is ahead by 19 points.

Why would the parties squander their soft money there?  Likewise, why
would a progressive New Yorker squander their vote on Gore?

Given the nature of our winner-take-all, corporate-money-drenched
democracy, many believe that voting isn't the best way to create social
progress. For them, voting is tactical; it's about setting the agenda and
holding politicians accountable. In this election, progressives who feel
that way have an opportunity to make a significant statement, to send a
loud and clear message to the political establishment -- we won't let our
issues be left out of politics anymore.

Actually, the concept is pretty simple, as the ever-wise Molly Ivins
points out. She has written: "My voting philosophy is simple: In the
primaries, go with your heart; in the finals, vote your brain.... The
point here is to move the debate. I am so sick of having to listen to
Newt-Gingrich, Rush-Limbaugh Republicans and the Democrats who keep caving
to them that I'll vote Nader in a New York minute. OK, that's because I
live in Texas, where a vote for Nader is a 'free vote.' Our electors are
going to Dubya no matter how Democrats here vote, so for us this is the
equivalent of a primary vote: Go with your heart. The same is true in
states with the reverse situation. Massachusetts and New York will go
Democratic no matter how the progressives vote; and if we can get Nader
and the Green Party the 5 percent they need to qualify for federal
spending in 2004, we will, in fact, move the debate. There's every reason
to do it, and no reason not to. As for you voters in swing states, where
you might actually make a difference, why don't we wait and see how it
looks in November?"

As sociologist Harry Levine reminds us, "election results nowadays are
very knowable -- not the exact percentage of the vote, but the outcome and
likely range of victory. Gore, Lieberman, Bush and Cheney are all
campaigning like mad in Ohio, Pennsylvania, Michigan, Missouri, Florida
and a few other states because those are the states where the elction is
turning, where it's close. The rest of the states are fairly certain to go
one way or the other, and there are good guesses about the percentage."

Why is voting for Nader without risk possible? Because of the Electoral
College, it makes no difference if Gore or Bush win a particular state by
one vote or by a million. The president is not elected by the popular
vote, but by a majority (270) of the 538 electoral votes. These electoral
votes are cast by state, and it's winner-take-all within each state. Thus,
a Nader vote has no chance of "spoiling" the outcome for Al Gore unless it
potentially changes the outcome within each state. And for 90 percent of
the states (including the biggest ones), that's not going to happen.

Many articulate Goreites have missed this point, and insist on hammering
home the spoiler argument. Of course, we need to consider their
motivation. From Paul Wellstone to Barney Frank, Jesse Jackson (both
Senior and Junior, although at least Junior tried to get Nader into the
presidential debates) to Bob Borosage, Joe Conason to Eric Alterman and on
and on, they are elected officals who need the Democrats to get themselves
reeclected, or people with funding ties to trade unions deeply invested in
a Gore victory, or pundits with sources of inside information in White
House establishment, etc, etc.

It's not that these Gore apologists should be completely blamed. These
guys are practicing the pragmatic politics that works for them, a position
they think is the "left wing of the possible." But working constantly
within the system and losing touch with the larger progressive base --
especially with the many disgusted voters who have dropped out -- can
backfire on you in the end. Much more than a solid Gore victory is
possible in this election. If progressives vote smart, we could elevate
the Nader populist critique to much larger audiences.

To make the numbers case is Steve Cobble, a Nader supporter but one who,
as an advisor for Jesse Jackson and many others, has earned a reputation
as one of the most acute analysts of voter patterns and the arcane
machinations of the political system. Cobble broken down the numbers in an
article for TomPaine.com, and come to this conclusion:

"Except for a very small number of states, progressives have a free vote.
They can vote their conscience for Ralph Nader, and help him get the 5
percent he needs to build a new fourth party. In at least two-thirds of
the country, and perhaps as many as nine states out of ten, a vote for
Ralph Nader is not a vote for George Bush. It's really a vote for Ralph
Nader."

Here is Cobble's run down, state by state:

(1) Safe for Bush (17 states): Alabama, Alaska, Idaho, INDIANA, Kansas,
Mississippi, Montana, Nebraska, NORTH CAROLINA, North Dakota, Oklahoma,
South Carolina, South Dakota, Texas, Utah, Virginia, Wyoming.

In these states, every progressive can vote for Nader knowing that they
are not endangering the Supreme Court in any way.

(2) Leaning toward Bush (7 states): Arizona, Arkansas, Colorado, Georgia,
Kentucky, Nevada, New Hampshire.

Same basic rule -- in these states, progressives can vote for Ralph safe
in the knowledge that none of these states are absolutely necessary to
build a winning electoral coalition for Gore.

(3) Safe for Gore (15 states): CALIFORNIA, Connecticut, D.C., Hawaii,
Illinois, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, New Jersey, New York,
Rhode Island, Tennessee, West Virginia, Vermont.

In these states, progressives can not only vote safely for Nader, they can
each recruit one ortwo other friends to vote for Ralph, secure in the
knowledge that George Bush has given up (or will give up in early October)
on winning these electoral votes.

(4) Leaning toward Gore (7 states): Delaware, Iowa, Michigan, Oregon,
PENNSYLVANIA, WASHINGTON, Wisconsin.

These states are likely to end up in Gore's column, unless he badly blows
the debates. If they do maintain his current lead, then progressives are
secure in voting for Nader.

(5) Toss-up (5 states): Florida, LOUISIANA, Missouri, New Mexico,Ohio.

In these five swing states, the Ivins Rule applies most strongly -- check
the state polls right before election day, then make your judgment.

The Moore Rule

There is another complementary take on the Ivins Rule -- the Michael Moore
rule: "If you didn't vote at all in 1996, then you are free to vote for
Ralph Nader no matter where you live. As a non-voters, you are part of the
biggest party of all, and you should come to the polls to help build a
fourth party that can offer you more choices in future elections."

Moore goes on to note that if non-voters show up at the polls for Ralph,
they are likely to vote for Democrats in state and local elections, since
most races don't have Green Party candidates on the ballot. In that
scenario, Gore and the Democrats will owe Nader a big thank you,
especially if the extra voters help secure the House or Senate for the
Dems.

----- End of Forwarded Message