More Nader bullshit
This is probably the most ridiculous Nader spin you’ll read all week.
Curley argued that Nader cost Democratic presidential candidate Al Gore the election in 2000 by drawing away valuable votes from the Democrats.
A volunteer replied that Nader would have won the election using the Condorset (sic) method, an obscure voting system that allows voters to rank candidates in order of preference.
This is untrue. John Tabin applies the Condorcet method as follows:
If all Gore voters’ preference was Gore, Nader, Bush, all Nader voters’ preference was Nader, Gore, Bush, and all Bush voters’ preference was Bush, Gore, Nader, the winner would be Gore (Nader wins match-up with Bush; Gore wins match-up with Nader; Gore wins match-up with Bush). To believe that Nader would win a Condorcet election, you must believe that Bush voters would prefer Nader to Gore
The idea that Nader could have appealed to more Americans than any major party candidate – and would have, if the rules were fair – is a fanciful lie. Nader’s popularity, according to the Gallup polls in 2000, was around 40% positive, 34% negative. It’s decreased dramatically since then – in March, Gallup pegged him at at 30% positive, 48% negative. In 1954, Joe McCarthy’s favorable rating was 35%.