"A Vote For Nader Is A Vote For Bush."

Along the same lines of my Badnarik post, let's see if the "conventional wisdom" that Nader cost Gore the election, and that he might cost Kerry the 2004 election, holds true.

First, like in the Badnarik argument, 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 eight states where the number of votes Nader received was equal to or greater than the difference in vote numbers between Bush and Gore: Florida (35 electoral votes), Iowa (7), Maine (4), Minnesota (10), New Hampshire ((4), New Mexico (5), Oregon (7) and Wisconsin (11).

Out of those eight, Gore won Iowa, Maine, Minnesota, New Mexico, Oregon, and Wisconsin, even without Nader's votes.

Florida and New Hampshire went to Bush. Gore would have won them if all Nader voters voted for him instead. The two states counted for a total of 29 electoral votes.

The actual electoral vote count was Gore 266, Bush 271. If every single Nader voter in America had voted for Gore instead, the electoral vote count would have been Gore 295, Bush 242. Gore would have won.

And if every single Nader voter in America had voted for Bush instead (a very unlikely 'if'), the electoral count would have been Gore 222, Bush 315. Bush would have won.

So, if you assume they would have voted for Gore if they didn't vote for Nader, the Nader vote DID affect the outcome of the election.

So it's pretty safe to assume that any effect Badnarik's voters will have on determining the ultimate outcome of the 2004 election will be more than outweighed by the Nader effect.