• 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.