"A Vote For Badnarik Is A Vote For Kerry."

I keep hearing this argument from my conservative friends, who don't seem to grasp that a vote for Badnarik is a vote for Badnarik. Nor do they understand that in my view Bush is a different evil than Kerry, but not a lesser evil. The two are equally evil, just in different areas.

But to point out the absurdity of their argument, let's indulge it for a moment. Let's say that for Libertarians the choice is to vote for Badnarik or to vote for Bush, although, given the uncompromising nature of Libertariana, in reality the choice is closer to vote for Badnarik or don't vote at all.

Since the best predictor we have for the near future is the recent past, let's look back at 2000, and magically change every vote for Harry Browne into a vote for Bush.

Does it change the outcome?

First, we begin by culling out all the states where in actuality either Bush or Gore got at least 50%. That leaves nine states where it MIGHT make a difference -- Florida, Iowa, Maine, Minnesota, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Mexico, Oregon, and Wisconsin.

Of these, there were only four states where the number of votes Browne received was equal to or greater than the difference in vote numbers between Bush and Gore: Florida (35 electoral votes), New Mexico (5), Oregon (7) and Wisconsin (11).

Out of those four, Bush won Florida, even without Browne's votes.

New Mexico, Oregon, and Wisconsin went to Gore. Bush would have won them if all Browne voters voted for him instead. The three states counted for a total of 23 electoral votes.

The actual electoral vote count was Gore 266, Bush 271. If every single Browne voter in America had voted for Bush instead, the electoral vote count would have been Gore 243, Bush 294. The end result would have been the same -- Bush would have won.

Interestingly, if every single Browne voter in America had voted for Gore instead, the electoral count would have been Gore 291, Bush 246. Gore would have won.

In other words, by voting for Browne instead of Bush, Libertarians did not affect the ultimate outcome of the election. But by voting for Browne instead of Gore, Libertarians DID affect the ultimate outcome.

But like I said, the assumption that Libertarians would have voted for Bush if they didn't vote Libertarian is a mighty big assumption. Almost as big as assuming they would have voted for Gore if they didn't vote Libertarian. I still think it's more likely they would have stayed home.

If Bush loses the election, it will be because of George W. Bush, not because of Michael Badnarik.