Jan 15, 2004

Cost of Neutrality

I was looking over some stats for the previous 3 presidential elections.

2000 (too close to list these as percentages)
------------------------
Gore 50,996,582
Bush 50,456,062 (540,520 less!)
Nader 2,858,843

1996
------------------------
Clinton 50%
Dole 42%
Perot 8%

1992
------------------------
Clinton 43%
Bush 37.7%
Perot 19%

From these figures alone you might argue that the independent
candidate in the last 3 elections probably affected the outcome.
Some might also argue that in all three elections the
independent candidate got votes that are likely to have been
cast for the loser among the two non-independent candidates.

But, take a look at these statistics. These are the numbers of
eligible votes who actually voted in each of those past elections:

Participation
-------------------------------
2000 (51.3% of eligible voters)
1996 (48.8% of eligible voters)
1992 (55.2% of eligible voters)

Clearly, if these voters showed up each race could have
been entirely different. Since many feel that we are
now in a time of crisis I leave this message to the
folks that didn't make it to the polls last time:

"The hottest place in hell is reserved for those who,
in times of great moral crisis, remain neutral."

-Dante