Question

The plurality method is used in most U.S. elections. Some people feel that Ross Perot in 1992 and Ralph Nader in 2000 changed what the outcome of the election would have been if they had not run. Research the outcomes of these elections and explain how each candidate could have affected the outcome of the elections (for the 2000 election, you may wish to focus on the count in Florida). Describe how an alternative voting method could have avoided this issue.

Answer 1

FOR DETAILED FIGURES:- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election,_2000

In the United States,generally the plurality voting method is used, augmented with a sequential runoff system (primary elections). The primary election serves to narrow the pool of potential candidates to two (or one from each party, depending on the state), then the general election decides between those remaining candidates.

Not only two candidates, but virtually two nations confronted each other in the election of 2000. While Gore and Bush received essentially identical support in the total popular vote, they drew this support from very different constituencies. In carrying the preponderance of states (30), Bush changed the landscape of American politics. He swept the interior of the nation, including great swaths of the nation's territory in the South, Border, Plains, and Mountain areas. Gore won in only 20 states (and the District of Columbia), almost all on the geographical fringes of the nation--bordering the Atlantic Ocean (north of the Potomac), the Pacific Ocean, and the Great Lakes.

The close national division was reflected in some of the states. A shift of merely a quarter of 1 percent of state votes--an infinitesimal national total of 17,000 ballots nationally--would have reversed 55 electoral votes from five states (Florida, Iowa, New Mexico, Oregon, and Wisconsin). Only in these close states, particularly Florida, did votes for the minor candidacies of Ralph Nader and Pat Buchanan make a difference--but there they were still an immense influence.

Nader and his Green party won merely 3 percent (2,830,900) of the national vote, far below the 5 percent required to receive federal financial support in the future (his principal goal), even less than the support won by Ross Perot as a third-party candidate in 1996 (8 percent) and 1992 (19 percent), and vastly less than the extravagant attention Nader had attracted in the press. Buchanan did far worse, gaining less than half a million votes (.4390), even though he had over $12 million in federal money, inherited from the Reform party previously headed by Perot.

Despite their small numbers, Nader's and Buchanan's supporters provided the margin of victory for Bush. If Nader had not been on the ballot, Gore would have carried Florida and all of the other close states easily, giving him a comfortable electoral total of at least 292. If Buchanan had not been a candidate, the Florida ballot might have been simpler to understand, giving Gore enough votes to win the national election simply by carrying the Sunshine State. Even without Florida, we might speculate--but cannot demonstrate--that an election without Nader would have enabled Gore to campaign in other winnable states (most obviously Tennessee and New Hampshire) and overcome his shortfall of only three electoral votes

There are 4 common methods of voting.

• Voice vote, by saying “aye” or “no”.
• Rising Vote, either by standing or a show of hands.
• Secret Ballot, A written vote.
• Roll Call, with each member speaking their vote when the secretary calls their name

The AV system asks voters to rank candidates in order of preference. People can nominate as many preferences as they like. Only first preference votes are counted initially. ... This continues until one candidate has 50% or more of the vote in that round of counting, or there are no more votes to be distributed.