• Billiam@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    16 days ago

    I looked at the totals for the 2000 election and found that, had every Nader voter instead voted for Gore, there would have been only two states that would have flipped:

    • Florida, by a tally of 2,912,790 Bush to 3,009,741.
    • New Hampshire, which would have been 273,559 Bush to 288,546 Gore.

    Now, it’s entirely possible we still get the ratfucking from SCOTUS and they still throw the state to Bush. But New Hampshire had 4 electoral votes, and had they gone for Gore then it would have been 267 Bush - 270 President Gore.

    Bush won because 22,198 people in NH didn’t understand that voting for a third-party only hurts the major party that most closely aligns with your ideals.

    • Venus_Ziegenfalle@feddit.org
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      16 days ago

      Having only two major parties and “winner takes it all” elections is a shit system and it was doomed to fail. You can’t force people to vote for “the lesser of two evils” forever. That’s not how a democracy is supposed to work. Especially if neither of the major parties allign with your ideals. Of course the consequences of this non-compliance are dire but it was inevitable.

      • UsernameHere@lemy.lol
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        16 days ago

        You have to vote for the lesser of two evils in order to get a chance at changing the election system.

        The GOP are trying to take away voting rights. Not the Dems.