If only 1000 of the 200,000 Democrats hadn't voted for Bush, your argument
would have some relevance within the context of the preceding post.

Bob C
Idahoan for Nader
"George Cleveland" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 10 Apr 2004 02:19:12 GMT, "Bob C in Idaho"
wrote:

"Twelve percent of Florida Democrats (over 200,000) voted for Republican
George Bush"
-San Francisco Chronicle, Nov. 9, 2000

The Greens received 97,488 votes and the votes cast for all other
candidates
and write-ins amounted to 40,579 --grand total of 138,067. So one could
logically conclude from these figures that NO votes cast for Ralph Nader
had
any affect on the outcome. However, had registered Democrats trusted
their
parties choice, George Bush would likely be reading comic books at his
Texas
ranch rather than in the White House.

If figures don't impress you, please, explain how you can conclude that
votes not cast for Nader (or any of the other non-major candidates)
automatically convert in to votes for Gore?

Bob C.
Idahoan for Nader

"rw" wrote in message
link.net...
Bob in Idaho wrote:
Precisely! Votes cast for Ralph Nader have absolutely no affect on
the
outcome of the race between the two main candidates, no matter where
those
votes were are cast.

How about, for example, Florida in 2000?

--
Cut "to the chase" for my email address.

Absolutely illogical. If only 1000 Naderites had voted for Gore
instead of Ralf, then we wouldn't have the assholes we currently have
in control of the Whitehouse. Perhaps other assholes but certainly not
the ones there now. In the system we have now, with no run off
elections between the two top vote getters third parties will always
have the effect of tilting the election one way or another.


g.c.