[EM] Re: Kerry-Nader negotiation initiative

[Warren Schudy]

Nader is *not* the most important third-party candidate in recent history.  
In 1992 and 1996, Perot got 19 and 8 million votes respectively.  
(http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0781450.html). In the past century, third 
party candidates exceeded Nader's 2000 2.8 million votes in 1996, 1992, 
1980, 1968, 1924, and 1912.

According to the same website, the last time a third party got second
place was 1912. The last time a third party (the Whigs) won was 1848,
though back then the Republicans did not exist, and the Whigs were one of
the big two.

-wjs

On Fri, 3 Sep 2004 RLSuter at aol.com wrote:

> In any case, if the U.S. had a reasonably adequate system for
> electing presidents, no initiative like the one I'm proposing would be
> necessary. What is dismaying is that I have not heard a single
> political scientist or other expert in the mainstream media who
> has provided a very clear explanation of why we are cursed with
> the spoiler problem and why Nader's candidacy is merely the worst
> instance of this in recent history if not all of U.S. history. I'm
> wondering if even most political scienstists understand this,
> fundamentally important and profoundly consequential though
> it is.

/-----------------------------------------\
| Warren Schudy                           |
| WPI Class of 2005                       |
| Physics and computer science major      |
| AIM: WJSchudy  email: wschudy at wpi.edu   |
| http://users.wpi.edu/~wschudy/          |
\-----------------------------------------/