Neither Perot nor Nader cost anyone an election

Nobody ever argues that Strom Thurmond stopped Tom Dewey from winning in 1948. Nor does anyone claim that George Wallace prevented Hubert Humphrey from defeating Richard Nixon in 1968. But it’s widely accepted that without Ross Perot’s campaigns Bill Clinton would never have been elected, and that Ralph Nader blocked Al Gore from ascending to the White House. These claims rest on assumptions about what the people who voted for the alternative candidate would have otherwise done. It’s impossible to know for certain what would have happened without the campaigns of these insurgents, but in the case of the last two the data does not support the conventional wisdom.

1948 is instructive, as it was a shocking upset that famously featured Harry Truman holding up a newspaper with a headline incorrectly declaring a victory for Dewey. Truman was written off as a sure loser because of his high negative ratings and because he faced not one but three alternative candidates in Strom Thurmond, Henry Wallace, and Norman Thomas, all of whom were expected to take votes from the Democratic nominee. But at the end of the day the man from Missouri bested Dewey by over 2 million votes and over 100 electoral votes despite Thurmond winning four southern states and that he and Wallace each received more than 1.1 million votes. Two supposed kingmakers, one drawing support nationwide and one who had enough regional prowess to make a huge dent in the electoral college, together failed to swing the balance. Tom Dewey actually received fewer votes than he had in 1944. He lost on his own account, just as George H. W. Bush did in 1992 and Al Gore did in 2000.

For those unwilling to believe that Perot didn’t harm Bush, Joshua Leinsdorf’s analysis is quite instructive. In particular one should note that Perot voters who had a gubernatorial race on their ballot overwhelmingly supported Democrats. In congressional races those same Perot folks did favor Republicans over Democrats, but only by a tiny margin, and far more simply did not mark their ballot in those contests. Even if every one of them who voted for a GOP candidate for US House would have supported the elder Bush if the Perot option was not available it only would have amounted to 500,000 votes, less than a tenth of Clinton’s margin of victory. Looking at the individual states the changes of results without the Texas billionaire on the ballot may have gained the GOP a handful of electoral votes, nowhere near enough when Clinton won by over 200. Dole lost by even more than Bush did, so even if Perot had not run 1996 and maybe Nevada flipped to the Republicans it still would have been a huge Democrat victory.

But surely Ralph Nader cost Al Gore the White House, right? Dubya actually lost the popular vote, and Nader’s vote total in Florida was greater than the difference between Bush and Gore. Without him as the Green Party candidate clearly the Democrats would have won. In reality the data simply does not support this conclusion. Exit polling indicated that without Nader in the race Bush’s margin of victory in the Sunshine state would have been greater. Part of this might be explained that while 34,000 self-described liberals voted for Nader, another 191,000 voted for Bush. These liberals couldn’t stomach Gore so they went elsewhere. Nader didn’t take from Gore because that wasn’t where those folks were going. When one considers that Nader received more than the difference between Bush and Gore in New Mexico, Oregon, Wisconsin, Minnesota and Maine, states won by Gore, the possibility arises that without Nader in the race Dubya may have won by a considerable margin in the Electoral College even if he had lost Florida. It also should not be forgotten that Gore was 537 votes behind Bush and not only Nader but Pat Buchanan of the Reform Party, Harry Browne of the Libertarian Party, John Hagelin of the Natural Law Party, Monica Moorehead of the Worker’s World Party, Howard Phillips of the Constitution Party, David McReynolds of the Socialist Party, and James Harris of the Socialist Workers Party all received more than 537 votes in Florida.

Back in 2016 here is what you need to know. People who prefer Donald Trump will vote for him. People who think Hillary Clinton is a better choice will vote for her. Many will come to their conclusion because they aren’t familiar with their other choices, many think that they should stay within the two-party system, and many want to vote for someone whom they think has a chance to win. But notions that a vote for an alternative candidate would cost those two bosom buddies, Donald and Hillary, are just plain false and ought to be discarded. If you think Gary Johnson is the candidate that you prefer, or Jill Stein or some other person, vote for them. If you just can’t bear voting for Clinton or Trump, don’t. There’s no cost, and anyone who says otherwise is, as Gary Johnson puts it, “saying your beliefs aren’t worth being represented. That you should silence your voice so theirs can be louder.” Listen to those who would tell you why their candidate is a better choice, if you want. But those who think they get to decide what votes matter ought to be ignored.