Brad's probably right about From, although more Democrats voted for Bush than for Nader.
In an immediate sense, the Nader reprisals were obviously about a Gore win. But I suspected there was something more. The anti-Nader drive by many Dems was also about the two-party system, and they rightly, unlike the Greens, approached this as an issue of power. The Greens, however, continue to approach this as a technocratic issue, which IRV and the like would solve. The Dems lost the White House, but perhaps they've secured the two-party system.
Jeffrey Fisher wrote:
> beyond which, in an electoral college system, this
> would have to be broken down by state to be truly
> meaningful, especially since gore *won* the popular
> vote even without the nader voters. in my own state
> of illinois, for example, gore's success was never in
> doubt.
And recall what the Electoral College did in '92: one-fifth of the popular vote for Perot = zero votes for the presidency. From the vantage point of defending the two-party system, the EC might well have proved itself, despite the odd chance of the EC vote and the popular vote conflicting. Still, that's just my peculiar suspicion. I still think it's weird the Dems, in the wake of 2000, weren't at least pushing _as a party_ to abolish the EC. There was some talk, yes, but that seemed evaporate.
-- Shane
________________________________________________________________ The best thing to hit the internet in years - Juno SpeedBand! Surf the web up to FIVE TIMES FASTER! Only $14.95/ month - visit www.juno.com to sign up today!