Ralph Nader's possible impact on the 2000 US Presidential Election:
A Modest Review of the Question: What Was Ralph Nader’s Possible Impact on the Outcome of the 2000 U.S. Presidential Election?

Table of Contents

Introduction

I. Some Reported Facts

1. Votes cast for Nader in Florida and New Hampshire

2. Bush's Margin of Victory in Florida and New Hampshire

3. Significance of Florida and New Hampshire

4. Hypothetical Scenarios in Nader's Absence from the Election

5. How the Two Main Political Parties Viewed Nader

II. Additional Factors

1. Florida Ballot Controversy

2. U.S. Supreme Court Decision: Bush v. Gore

III. Conclusion

Did Nader's Candidacy Cause Gore to Lose the 2000 Election?

Appendices

Appendix A: Pros and Cons: Did Nader Cost Gore the Election?

Appendix B: Comparison of Candidate Positions on Key Issues

Appendix C: Breakdown of Voters by Demographic

Footnotes


















    Introduction

    This report contains my findings in answer to the question about Ralph Nader’s possible impact on the outcome of the Nov. 7, 2000 U.S. presidential election.
    The research was conducted on the internet using news reports, official election results, polling data, and journal articles. All sources are cited in footnotes.
    The report shows some reported facts, additional factors, and a conclusion.
    Appendix A contains a chart showing the pro and con arguments of whether Nader cost Gore the election.
    Appendix B compares the positions of Bush, Gore, and Nader on key policy issues.
    Appendix C shows voter demographics to demonstrate how different groups supported each candidate.
    Ralph Nader ran for U.S. President in 2000 as a member of the Green Party against Democrat Al Gore and Republican George W. Bush, who won the election.
    To be elected U.S. President, a candidate must receive at least 270 electoral votes, a majority of the 538 total electoral votes. Bush received 271 electoral votes while Gore received 266 (an elector from D.C. left her ballot blank to protest the District of Columbia’s lack of representation in Congress).
    Al Gore garnered 48.38% of the popular vote (50,999,897) compared to 47.87% (50,456,002 votes) won by Bush. Even though Gore obtained 543,895 more votes than Bush, he lost the election by not capturing enough electoral votes.1
    Had Gore won the popular vote in either Florida or New Hampshire, he would have had enough electoral votes to win the presidency.
    The question of whether Nader “spoiled” the election for Gore arose because of perceived similarities between the Green Party and the Democratic Party platforms. Some election scholars and journalists have speculated that Nader supporters would have voted for Gore if Nader hadn’t been in the race, which would have changed the outcome of the election from a Bush to a Gore win.

    Return to Table of Contents

    I. Some Reported Facts

    1. Votes Cast for Nader in Florida and New Hampshire

    According to the official Presidential General Election results reported by the Federal Election Commission, Ralph Nader received 97,488 votes in Florida and 22,198 in New Hampshire.2
    (NOTE: In Florida 40,539 and in New Hampshire 5,755 votes were cast for candidates other than Bush, Gore, or Nader.)

    2. Bush’s Margin of Victory in Florida and New Hampshire

    George W. Bush received 537 more votes than Al Gore in Florida and 7,211 more votes in New Hampshire.3 As a result, he gained 25 electoral votes from Florida and 4 electoral votes from New Hampshire.

    Chart 1:

    Votes Cast for Bush, Gore, Nader, and Other 3rd Party Candidates in FL and NH

    Florida
    New Hampshire
    Bush 2,912,790 273,559
    Gore 2,912,253 266,348
    difference 537 7,211
    Nader 97,488 22,198
    Other Candidates 40,539 5,755
    Total Votes 5,963,070 567,860

    Chart 2:

    Votes Cast for Other Candidates in FL and NH in 2000

    Candidate Florida
    New Hampshire
    Browne 16,415 2,757
    Buchanan 17,484 2,615
    Hagelin 2,281 55
    Harris 562 0
    McReynolds 622 0
    Moorehead 1,804 0
    Phillips 1,371 328
    Total: 40,539 5,755

    3. Significance of Florida and New Hampshire

    Florida and New Hampshire were both closely-contested as shown by the small number of votes separating Bush and Gore. Had either state gone to Gore instead of Bush (with the voting in all other states remaining the same), Al Gore would have gained enough electoral votes to win the election, as demonstrated in Chart 3 below.


    Chart 3:

    Electoral Votes in Different Scenarios

    Bush Electoral Votes
    Gore Electoral Votes
    Effect on Election
    Actual Results:

    Bush wins FL & NH

    271 266 Bush Wins
    Hypothetical 1:

    Bush wins FL, Gore wins NH

    267 270 Gore Wins
    Hypothetical 2:

    Gore wins FL, Bush wins NH

    246 291 Gore Wins
    Hypothetical 3:

    Gore wins FL & NH

    242 295 Gore Wins

    4. Hypothetical Scenarios in Nader’s Absence from the 2000 Presidential Election

    Nationwide: A peer-reviewed study by Political Science professors Neal Allen, PhD and Brian J. Brox, PhD, determined that most third party voters would not have voted for either Gore or Bush in Nader’s absence. However, some of them would likely have voted for Gore:
    “Nader voters were largely liberal, much more so than the supporters of other recent third party and independent candidates, and it is reasonable to wonder if they were Democrats who supported Nader because of Gore’s perceived moderation... [O]ur analyses suggest a 1.8 percent rate of defection from Gore to Nader... This provides tentative support for the widely held conclusion that Nader drew enough voters away from Gore in Florida to account for Bush’s decisive margin of 537 votes out of over 6 million votes cast."4
    According to exit polls conducted nationwide by Voter News Service (a consortium ABC News, CBS News, CNN, FOX News, NBC News and the Associated Press), 45 percent of Nader voters said they would have voted for Gore, 27 percent said they would have voted for Bush, and the rest said they would not have voted at all.5
    In Florida: A 2006 ballot-level study conducted by political science professors at UCLA and Dartmouth concluded that an estimated 61% of Nader voters in Florida would have voted for Gore had Nader not been in the election. After looking at images of more than three million ballots cast in ten Florida counties, the professors determined that Nader supporters were not uniformly Democrats. They also found that 40% of Nader’s votes could possibly have gone to Bush. The study also found that knowing how close the election was in their state influenced the decisions of Florida voters. 6
    In New Hampshire: CNN's exit polls in New Hampshire indicated that Nader took 2% of the Republican vote compared to 1% of the Democrat votes, according to a 2004 analysis by journalist Tony Schinella. The exact number of votes represented by those percentages is of course unknown, but New Hampshire voters were registered 32% Republican, 24% Democrat, and 35% undeclared in 2000.7 Therefore, the 2% of the Republican vote taken by Nader was a higher number of votes than the 1% of the Democrat vote. In addition, 6% of registered Democrats surveyed in New Hampshire reported voting for Bush instead of Gore.8
    The Voter News Service exit polling estimated that 45 percent of Nader voters would have gone to Gore and 27 percent to Bush. Applying that estimate to New Hampshire, the outcome would have been the same: Bush would have won in New Hampshire by 3,215 votes instead of 7,211 votes (279,552 for Bush and 276,337 for Gore).

    5. How the Two Main Political Parties Viewed Nader

    During the 2000 election, Nader painted the two main party candidates as being essentially the same.9 He said at a campaign event in Oct. 2000:
    “The only difference between Al Gore and George W. Bush is the velocity with which their knees hit the floor when corporations knock."10
    As a guest on ABC’s Good Morning America, Nader said:
    “Whether Gore or Bush gets into the White House doesn't mean that much, because the permanent corporate government in Washington is really determining policy.”11
    Despite Nader’s comparison of the two major parties, both the Democrats and the Republicans appeared to believe that Nader was more likely to siphon votes from Gore than from Bush. The Green Party platform was left of the Democratic Party, and much further left of the Republicans.
    TIME magazine wrote on Oct. 23, 2000:
    “The experts seem to agree the Nader vote is coming right out of Gore's slice of the electoral pie.”12
    The Associated Press stated the following on May 26, 2000:
    “Some environmentalists say they have embraced the Green Party candidate as a protest against the Clinton-Gore administration for being too quick to compromise on environmental issues. And some of the biggest environmental groups like the Sierra Club and the League of Conservation Voters, though leaning toward Gore, haven't officially declared. Democratic-leaning critics of the China trade deal also have mentioned Nader as an alternative.”13
    In the week before the election, the Republican Leadership Council ran television ads showing Nader attacking Gore in Washington, Oregon, and Wisconsin – three states projected to be favoring Gore over Bush where Nader was polling well. The ads were intended to sway votes away from Gore by promoting Nader.14, 15
    The Democrats were worried that losing votes to Nader could mean the difference in a close election. They promoted the message that voting for Nader even though he had no chance of winning could effectively mean electing Bush.
    The Democratic Vice Presidential nominee, Joe Lieberman, stated in an Oct. 25, 2000 television interview:
    “A vote for Nader is a vote for Bush. Al Gore and I are clearly much closer to Ralph Nader than George Bush is, so I don’t think people should throw away their vote or even worse, help elect somebody that is diametrically opposed to what they are for.”16
    Nader was seen as an alternative to Gore, especially on environmental issues, because Nader was able to be more ideological than the Democratic nominee, who was trying to maintain support from moderates as well as the far-left.

    Return to Table of Contents

    II. Additional Factors

    1. Florida Ballot Controversy

    Palm Beach County has traditionally been one of the most Democratic counties in Florida: in 2000, about 45 percent of voters were registered Democrats compared with about 35% Republicans.17 The 40 cities that Palm Beach County comprises, which represented approximately 460,000 votes in the 2000 election18, used a “butterfly ballot” method for voting. The ballot listed candidate names on both sides of the page, with punch holes in the middle. Bush’s name was listed first, and the first punch hole corresponded to his name. Gore’s name was listed second, but the third punch hole needed to be selected to cast a vote for him. Selecting the second hole resulted in a vote for Buchanan.

    Image 1: Palm Beach County, Florida Nov. 7, 2000 Ballot19


    Ballot
    Mark Schilling, PhD, Professor of Mathematics at California State University, Northridge, performed a regression analysis on all Florida election data to predict the expected votes for Buchanan in Palm Beach County. He found that Buchanan should have received 1.4% of the votes as opposed to the 8% of votes that was recorded. Schilling’s conclusion was that as many as 5 out of 6 votes cast for Buchanan in Palm Beach County were intended for Gore, a difference of 2,817 votes.20
    In addition, more than 29,000 ballots in Palm Beach County (four percent of the votes cast in that county) were discarded because either no presidential candidate or more than one candidate was selected. According to the New York Times, Palm Beach County Administrator Robert Weisman reported that at least 19,000 ballots included two or more votes for president, many of them for Buchanan and Gore. Weisman believed that the multiple votes indicated voter confusion. Democratic Party officials believed that the confusing ballot cost Gore the state of Florida, and in turn the election.21

    2. U.S. Supreme Court Decision: Bush v. Gore, 531 U.S. 98 (2000)

    Several issues with ballot counting in Florida led to a dispute over the results. Since the vote was so close, Florida law allowed Gore to call for a manual recount in the counties of his choice.
    Out of 67 counties in Florida, Gore won a total of 14; the other 53 went to Bush. Gore’s legal team requested a recount in four counties that had voted for the Democratic candidate by wide margins and that had a high number of voters: Broward, Miami-Dade, Palm Beach, and Volusia.

    Chart 4:

    Votes for Bush and Gore in the Four Counties Requested for Recount22

    County Bush
    Gore
    Gore’s Margin of Victory
    Broward 177,902 387,703 209,801
    Miami-Dade 289,533 328,808 39,275
    Palm Beach 152,951 269,732 116,781
    Volusia 82,357 97,304 14,947

    Despite Gore’s request, the recount was never completed and the votes were recorded the way they were originally submitted, as shown in the chart above. Secretary of State Kathleen Harris certified the election in favor of Bush before receiving recount results because three of the counties were unable to meet the given deadline. Harris had served as co-chair of Bush’s campaign in Florida, but insisted that she maintained a “firewall” between her duties as a public official and her activities for the Republican Party.23
    Gore and Palm Beach County filed for an injunction to stop Harris from certifying the election. The Florida Supreme Court issued the injunction and ruled that the votes must be recounted because “hanging chads” on punch card ballots prevented some votes from being included in the original tally. Bush appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court to overturn that ruling.24
    Seven of the nine U.S. Supreme Court justices agreed that the Florida Supreme Court’s mechanism for the recount violated the Equal Protection Clause. The decision to stop the recount was 5-4 in favor of Bush. The majority consisted of Chief Justice William Rehnquist, Sandra Day O’Connor, Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas, and Anthony Kennedy. The minority dissent was written by John Paul Stephens and joined by David H. Souter, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, and Stephen Breyer.
    A 2001 study commissioned by eight news organizations25 costing over $1 million examined the more than 176,000 Florida ballots (2.9 percent) that were not included in the official results. 62,000 of those ballots were undervotes, meaning no selection was detected by the voting machine. 113,000 were overvotes, read by machines as containing more than one selection.26
    The study found that Bush probably would have won the election by 225 votes even if the Supreme Court had allowed the recount of undervotes in four counties that Gore’s legal team requested. However, it is possible that Gore would have won if a full recount of all of Florida’s votes had been conducted, by an estimated margin of between 42 and 171 votes out of six million cast.27

    Return to Table of Contents

    III. Conclusion

    Did Nader’s candidacy cause Gore to lose the 2000 election?

    Given the foregoing information in this report, it is pretty clear in my mind that Gore would have won the 2000 U.S. presidential election if Nader had not run.
    If Gore had received 538 additional votes in Florida he would have had enough votes to win the state, which would have provided the electoral votes to win the presidency. According to the evidence presented in this report:
  • Extrapolating the Voter News Service national exit poll numbers to Florida, Gore would have gained at least an additional 26,000 votes in a race without Nader – more than the 537 votes that gave the state to Bush.28
  • A 2005 study estimated that Gore would have gained 1.8% of Nader’s votes in Florida, which would have added 1,754 votes, more than the 537 votes by which Bush won the state.29
  • A 2006 ballot-level study found that Gore could have received around 60% of Nader’s votes and Bush could have received 40% in Florida. In that scenario,Gore would have won Florida by 18,960 votes. 30
  • Most election scholars agree that the existence of the third party candidates, particularly Ralph Nader, did impact the outcome of the election. Seven other 3rd party candidates besides Nader received more than 562 votes each in Florida, so the absence of any one of those candidates may have resulted in Gore winning the election.31
    Nader’s absence would not likely have given Gore enough popular votes to win the four electoral votes in New Hampshire, but studies estimate the outcome in Florida may have been different if the only two candidates were Bush and Gore.
    Shifting Florida’s 25 electoral votes from Bush to Gore would have resulted in Al Gore becoming President of the United States
    Although outside the scope of this report, the numbers suggest that if Florida's Palm Beach County didn't use the butterfly ballot in the election, or if how to use it was clear to the voter, Gore would have probably received at least 2,000 more votes from those that accidentally voted for Buchanan.32
    Appendix A lists the pros and cons of whether Nader’s candidacy cost Gore the election.
    Appendix B shows a comparison of the candidates’ positions on key issues.
    Appendix C shows a breakdown of voters by demographic.

    Return to Table of Contents

    Appendix A

    Pros and Cons of Whether Nader Cost Gore the 2000 Presidential Election

    Pro (Nader cost Gore the election Con (Nader did not cost Gore the election)

    1. According to nationwide exit polls in 2000, as reported in 2004 by the New York Times:

    “Among Nader voters, 45 percent [of those that voted for Nader] said they would have voted for Mr. Gore, 27 percent said they would have voted for Mr. Bush, and the rest said they would not have voted.” i

    2. According to Gary Langer, a public opinion researcher who provides analysis to ABC News through Langer Research Associates:

    “In national exit poll data, 47 percent [of those that voted for Nader] said they’d have voted for Gore, 21 percent for Bush, and the rest would’ve stayed home. Divide the Nader vote in Florida that way, and inaugurate President Gore.” ii

    3. Michael C. Herron, PhD, professor of Government at Dartmouth, and Jeffrey B. Lewis, PhD, professor of Political Science at UCLA, wrote in 2006:

    “How do our results stack up against conventional wisdom, which holds that Ralph Nader spoiled the 2000 presidential election for Gore? We find that this common belief is justified, but our results show clearly that Nader spoiled Gore’s presidency only because the 2000 presidential race in Florida was unusually tight. Had Florida had a more typical Bush-Gore margin in 2000, Nader would not have been a spoiler.” iii

    4. Martin Dyckman, an investigative journalist who identifies as a progressive, wrote in 2012:

    “Nader's constituents were mainly idealists dreaming for a miracle or casting a protest vote. It's a stretch to think that many of them would have protested by voting for someone so much more conservative than Gore.” iv

    1. According to USC professor of Political Science Matthew Jones, because the 537 votes separating Bush and Gore fall within the margin of error, it is impossible to ascertain the cause of Gore’s loss in Florida. v

    2. Almost half of the Democratic Party members in Florida stayed home, so Nader voters may also have stayed home if they hadn’t been inspired to vote for him. vi

    3. In New Hampshire, CNN's exit polling showed Nader received 2 percent of the Republican vote and 1 percent of the Democrat vote. vii

    4. According to exit polls, 6% of Democrats in New Hampshire and 13% in Florida voted for Bush. Not being able to hold onto his base is what cost Gore the election. viii

    5. 673 professors from 124 law schools across the country signed a Jan. 13, 2001 full-page ad in the New York Times protesting the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision to stop the vote recount:

    “[W]hen a bare majority of the U.S. Supreme Court halted the recount of ballots under Florida law, the five justices were acting as political proponents for candidate Bush, not as judges. By stopping the recount in the middle, the five justices acted to suppress the facts.” ix

    6. Al Gore lost his own home state of Tennessee by more than 50,000 votes, which indicates that Nader was not the only reason people did not turn out to vote for Gore. x


    Appendix B

    Comparison of Candidate Positions on Key Issues

    Issue Bush
    Gore Nader
    1. Abortion

    Should abortion be legal?

    Con Pro Pro
    2. Affirmative Action:

    Should affirmative action be used in employment and education?

    Con Pro Pro
    3. Cuba Embargo:

    Should the U.S. maintain its embargo on Cuba?

    Pro Pro Con
    4. Death Penalty:

    Should the death penalty be allowed?

    Pro Pro Con
    5. Education:

    Should federal funding be linked to standardized test results?

    Pro Pro Con
    6. Health Care:

    Should the U.S. adopt a single-payer health care system?

    Con Con Pro
    7. Environment:

    Should the U.S. allow drilling for oil in the Artic National Wildlife Refuge(ANWR)?

    Pro Con Con
    8. Environment:

    Should the U.S. sign the Kyoto Protocol (an international agreement to reduce emissions)?

    Con Pro Pro
    9. Gay Marriage:

    Should gay marriage be legal?

    Con Con Pro
    10. Medical Marijuana:

    Should marijuana be a medical option?

    Con Con Pro
    11. Military:

    Should the U.S. military budget be increased?

    Pro Pro Con
    12. Social Security:

    Should Social Security be privatized?

    Pro Con Con
    13. NAFTA:

    Is the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) good for the U.S.?

    Pro Pro Con
    14. Taxes:

    Should the estate tax be eliminated completely?

    Pro Con Con

    Voters in the 2000 Presidential election may have based their decisions on where the candidates stood on the issues. This chart shows the 14 issues for which I was able to verify the positions of Bush, Gore, and Nader.
    Bush and Nader agreed on 0 of the 14 issues. Gore and Nader agreed on 6 out of 14 issues (42.85%).

    Appendix C

    Breakdown of Voters by Demographic

    2000 Presidential Election Group* Gore Bush Nader
    All Voters Pct. 48% 48%
    3%
    RACE
    White 81 42 55 3
    African-American 10 90 9 1
    Hispanic 7 62 35 2
    Asian 2 55 41 3
    AGE
    18-24 9 47 47 5
    25-29 8 49 46 4
    30-49 45 48 50 2
    50-64 24 50 48 2
    65 & over 14 51 47 2
    INCOME
    less than $15,000 7 58 38 4
    $15,000-29,999 16 54 42 3
    $30-49,999 24 49 48 2
    $50-74,999 25 46 51 2
    $75-99,999 13 46 52 2
    $100,000 & over 15 43 55 3
    PARTY
    Democrat 39 87 11 2
    Republican 35 8 91 1
    Independent 26 46 48 6
    POLITICAL PHILOSOPHY
    Liberal 20 81 13 6
    Moderate 50 53 45 2
    Conservative 29 17 82 1

    This chart shows how different groups voted in the Nov. 7, 2000 U.S. Presidential election. The breakdown offers insight into how Gore performed vs. Bush with certain groups, and also shows where Nader was able to pick up more support. Key points include:”

    1. Among people who identified as “liberal,” 6% voted Nader and 13% Bush

    2. Among registered Democrats, 2% reported voting Nader and 11% Bush

    3. Bush only lost 8% of registered Republicans to Gore and 1% to Nader

    4. Bush was able to win 48% of registered Independents, 2% more than Gore

    5. Nader’s highest support came from liberals, Independents, and people age 18-24

    Source: Survey by Voter News Service of 13,225 voters as they left voting booths on Election Day, November 7, 2000.


    By: Tracey DeFrancesco

    Date: Mar. 17, 2014

    Commissioned by the A-Mark Foundation


    PDF

    Return to Table of Contents

    Footnotes:

    1. Federal Election Commission, “2000 Official Presidential General Election Results,” fec.gov, last updated Dec. 2001

    2. Ibid.

    3. Ibid.

    4. Neal Allen and Brian J. Brox, “The Roots of Third Party Voting: The 2000 Nader Campaign in Historical Perspective,” Party Politics, Sep. 2005

    5. Gerald M. Pomper, PhD, “The 2000 Presidential Election: Why Gore Lost,” Political Science Quarterly, 2001

    6. Michael C. Herron, PhD, and Jeffrey B. Lewis, PhD, “Did Ralph Nader Spoil a Gore Presidency? A Ballot-Level Study of Green and Reform Party Voters in the 2000 Presidential Election,” Apr. 24, 2006

    7. Peter Haskell Burr, “Live Free and Vote: What Fifty Years of the New Hampshire Primary Can Teach a Candidate,” Historical New Hampshire, Spring/Summer 2003

    8. Tony Schinella, “DEBUNKING THE MYTH: Ralph Nader didn't cost Al Gore the presidency in 2000," Feb. 25, 2004

    9. Alexander Lane, “Nader Almost Said Gore=Bush, But Not Quite,” politifact.com, June 30, 2008

    10. Frank Pellegrini, “To Gore, He's Darth Nader — and Dangerous,” TIME, Oct. 23, 2000

    11. Laura Meckler, “GOP Group To Air Pro-Nader TV Ads,” Washington Post, Oct. 27, 2000

    12. Frank Pellegrini, “To Gore, He's Darth Nader — and Dangerous,” TIME, Oct. 23, 2000

    13. Associated Press, “Gore Faces Challenges from the Left,” USA Today, May 26, 2000

    14. Laura Meckler, “GOP Group To Air Pro-Nader TV Ads,” Washington Post, Oct. 27, 2000

    15. Michael Cooper and Richard Perez-Pena, “Republican Ads Use Nader’s Comments in Bid to Hurt Gore,” New York Times, Oct. 28, 2000

    16. David Ruppe and Peter Dizikes, “Nader Continues Gore Attacks,” ABC News, Oct. 26, 2000

    17. Stephanie Desmon, "Palm Beach County, Fla., Defies Pigeonholing," Baltimore Sun, Nov. 14, 2000

    18. Karla Schuster, Linda Kleindienst and Mark Hollis, "Court Allows Recount," Florida Sun-Sentinel, Nov. 17, 2000

    19. “VOTE: The Machinery of Democracy,” Smithsonian National Museum of American History, 2004

    20. Mark Schilling, “The 2000 Presidential Election A Statistical Postmortem,” Math Horizons, Apr. 2001

    21. Don Van Notta, Jr. and Dana Canedy, “Florida Democrats Say Ballot’s Design Hurt Gore,” New York Times, Nov. 9, 2000

    22. “Official Results,” Florida Department of State Election Results, doe.dos.state.fl.us, (accessed Jan. 15, 2014)

    23. “Katherine Harris’ ‘W’ Files,” CBS.com, Aug. 8, 2001

    24. Alex McBride, “Bush v. Gore (2000),” pbs.org, Dec. 2006

    25. The eight media companies that commissioned the National Opinion Research Center at the University of Chicago to conduct the study were the Associated Press, New York Times, Wall Street Journal, CNN, St. Petersburg Times, Palm Beach Post, Washington Post and the Tribune Co., which ran the Los Angeles Times, Chicago Tribune, Orlando Sentinel and Baltimore Sun, among other newspapers.

    26. Associated Press, “Recount of Fla. Ballot Favors Bush,” michigandaily.com, Nov. 12, 2001

    27. FactCheck, “The Florida Recount of 2000,” factcheck.org, Jan. 22, 2008

    28. Gerald M. Pomper, PhD, “The 2000 Presidential Election: Why Gore Lost,” Political Science Quarterly, 2001

    29. Neal Allen and Brian J. Brox, “The Roots of Third Party Voting: The 2000 Nader Campaign in Historical Perspective,” Party Politics, Sep. 2005

    30. Michael C. Herron, PhD, and Jeffrey B. Lewis, PhD, “Did Ralph Nader Spoil a Gore Presidency? A Ballot-Level Study of Green and Reform Party Voters in the 2000 Presidential Election,” Apr. 24, 2006

    31. Federal Election Commission, “2000 Official Presidential General Election Results,” fec.gov, last updated Dec. 2001

    32. Jonathan N. Wand, Kenneth W. Shotts, Jasjeet S. Sekhon, Walter R. Mebane, Michael C. Herron, and Henry E. Brady, "The Butterfly Did It: The Aberrant Vote for Buchanan in Palm Beach County, Florida," American Political Science Review, Dec. 2001


    Appendix A Sources

    i David E. Rosenbaum, “Relax, Nader Tells Democrats, but the Math Says Otherwise,” New York Times, Feb. 24, 2004

    ii Gary Langer, “Spoilage?,” ABC News, Feb. 25, 2008

    iii “Did Ralph Nader Spoil a Gore Presidency? A Ballot-Level Study of Green and Reform Party Voters in the 2000 Presidential Election,” Michael C. Herron and Jeffrey B. Lewis, Apr. 24, 2006

    iv Martin Dyckman, “Undermining Liberals: First Nader, Now Unger,” floridavoices.com, June 25, 2012

    v Matthew Jones, “Myths About Voter Turnout,” videojug.com, May 22, 2008

    vi Ibid.

    vii Tony Schinella, “DEBUNKING THE MYTH: Ralph Nader Didn't Cost Al Gore the Presidency in 2000," Feb. 25, 2004

    viii Ibid.

    ix “Law Professors for Rule of Law,” New York Times, Jan. 13, 2001 (554 professors had signed at the time of print but the total rose to 673 in an online petition)

    x Gary Langer, “Spoilage?,” ABC News, Feb. 25, 2008