• Ghostalmedia@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      Bigger margins leave you less vulnerable to fuckery by corrupt election officials and judges.

      Fact of the matter is, if Nader wasn’t on the ballot in 2000, Gore would’ve like had a healthy margin. He had almost 100,000 votes, and Gore only needed several hundred.

      • Sybil@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        Fact of the matter is, if Nader wasn’t on the ballot in 2000, Gore would’ve like had a healthy margin

        you can’t prove that.

        • Ghostalmedia@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          Nope, but you’d have to be fooling yourself if you thought, the people at the Nader rallies were down with Bush. If Nader wasn’t on the ballot, those votes were going to be Gore, people who declined state, or people writing in candidates out of protest.

          Gore needed less than 1% of Naders voters. The odds would’ve have clearly been in his favor.

          • Sybil@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            you can’t prove a counter factual. In a world where Nader isn’t on the ballot, you don’t know who the dem nominee was either.