What of the Spoilers?

by Vijayendra Rao

Most of the discussion about third party candidates in the days following the election has been about how Ralph Nader and the Green Party stole the election from Al Gore or how the people of Palm Beach mistakenly voted for Pat Buchanan of the Reform Party. But the national "Buchanan factor" deserves a second look, and, for good measure, let's throw in Libertarian candidate Harry Browne as well.

According to post-election night analysis by CNN's Bill Schneider, exit polls showed that about half of all voters who voted for Nader would have voted for Gore. If one assumes the same for the voters of those candidates to the right of George W. Bush, would the results of the election have been different?

Well, under those circumstances, the electoral results would change in five states: Wisconsin, Iowa, New Mexico, Oregon and Florida. Wisconsin would have gone for Bush by 2,760 votes and Iowa would be too close to call with a Gore margin of 202 votes. The last three, at the time this article is being written, are undeclared, but in the absence of the Reform and Libertarian candidates, would have gone for Bush. Even after deducting 3,000 votes from the Buchanan column to make up for "unintended votes" in the Palm Beach County of Florida, Bush would have carried the state by around 17,000 votes. The New Mexico margin would be in favor of Bush, but only by about 1,600 votes. Oregon would be a more decisive victory for Bush with the Republican candidate leading by approximately 3,500 votes. The end result is a Bush victory in the Electoral College by 294 to 237 with Iowa's seven electoral votes "too close to call."

But, according to this analysis, Democrats and the media are right when the say that in the absence of Nader, Gore would have carried the election. The Democratic candidate would have won the states of Oregon, New Mexico, Florida and New Hampshire (won by Bush) by comfortable margins. The result: a Gore electoral victory of 296 to 242.

So, in essence the "Nader factor" for Gore boils down to the fact that had Nader not run, Gore would likely have received 296 electoral votes. Similarly, had Buchanan and Browne not run, Bush would have received at least 294 electoral votes, and probably 301 adding the seven from Iowa. So, with regard to the Electoral College, both major party candidates were seriously hurt by third party spoilers, Buchanan and Browne being as relevant as Nader.

That is, of course, if half of the third party voters would have cast ballots for their expected major party candidate in a two-way race. But that's not necessarily the case. According to New Hampshire's Nashua Telegraph, "In a New Hampshire exit poll, neither Gore nor Bush got a boost when voters were asked whom they would've chosen in a two-way race. Four percent said they wouldn't have voted at all." The Telegraph continues: "If New Hampshire's Nader supporters matched the national trend, it appears unlikely Gore would have won. When those who would have stayed home or voted for Bush are taken into account, the net gain for Gore would have been only one in four of the Nader votes." Add the Buchanan and Browne factors, and the predictions get a little less convincing.

A look at exit polls conducted by the Voter News Service shows some rather startling results as well. In a two-way race, 49% of all voters said they would have voted for Bush--compared to Gore's 48%.

The VNS also found that, of those voters who say they would have voted for Gore in a two-way race, 2% voted for Nader and 1% voted for Bush. Of those who would have voted for Bush, 1% went for Nader and 2% actually voted for Gore. And so the Nader factor appears less than decisive. Of those voters who would not have voted at all in a two-way race, most, it turns out, were Nader voters. In a two-way race, according to VNS, Bush would have taken the popular vote by a one-point margin, and 2% of the would-be electorate would have stayed home. So much for the Nader factor.