Or: How I Learned To Stop Worrying and Love Instant Runoff Voting
Much speculation and analysis has been made about the 2000 Presidential Election. The bitterly contested election is still the subject of much fervent debate, especially among Democrats. Given the wide dissatisfaction felt for the current administration, especially among those who supported Al Gore in 2000, it's no surprise that the subject of the would-be Gore presidency in 2000 still stirs such anger and controversy. Some good has come from this debate, as old ideas such as the necessity for the Electoral College in a modern age of universal suffrage and new ideas such as electronic voting have been called into question and analyzed. As voting is one of the few means we, as citizens, have for directly influencing the government, it is important that the aspects of voting be closely monitored, analyzed, and understood.
While I, too, would have much preferred a Gore presidency over the current administration, there is one aspect of the debate where my fellow Gore supporters have erred: the false belief that Ralph Nader "robbed" Al Gore of the election. A minority of Democrats feel that Mr. Nader's and the Green Party's platform of strong environmental protection too closely encroached on Mr. Gore's strong environmental policy, thus "splitting" the votes of environmentalists, a group that traditionally votes with the Democrats. Due to the extremely slim margin needed for Gore to win Florida, a shift in a small number of Green Party voters would have given Mr. Gore the presidency.
