Editing Ralph Nader (section)

===== Spoiler controversy =====
In the [[United States presidential election in Florida, 2000|2000 presidential election in Florida]], George W. Bush defeated Al Gore by 537 votes. Nader received {{formatnum:97421}} votes, which led to claims that he was responsible for Gore's defeat. Nader disputes that he helped Bush win.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.votenader.org/why_ralph/index.php?cid=14 |title=Dear Conservatives Upset With the Policies of the Bush Administration |work=Nader for President 2004  |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20040702033113/http://www.votenader.org/why_ralph/index.php?cid=14 |archive-date=July 2, 2004 }}</ref><ref>{{cite news |url=https://www.wsj.com/articles/SB121218925042534249 |work=[[The Wall Street Journal]] |title=Interview: Ralph Nader | first=Tunku | last=Varadarajan | date=May 31, 2008}}</ref><ref>{{cite news |work=Grist |title=Nader on the Record |url=http://www.grist.org/feature/2008/03/19/nader/ |date=March 19, 2008}}</ref> A 2003 study found that Nader's candidacy was a critical factor in Bush's victory.<ref>{{cite journal |last1=Magee |first1=Christopher S. P. |title=Third-Party Candidates and the 2000 Presidential Election |journal=Social Science Quarterly |date=September 2003 |volume=84 |issue=3 |pages=574–595 |doi=10.1111/1540-6237.8403006 }}</ref> A 2004 study found that Nader voters had the profile of likely voters with a preference for Democratic candidates.<ref name="Southwell-2004">{{cite journal |last1=Southwell |first1=Priscilla L |title=Nader voters in the 2000 Presidential Election: what would they have done without him? |journal=The Social Science Journal |date=September 1, 2004 |volume=41 |issue=3 |pages=423–431 |doi=10.1016/j.soscij.2004.04.009 |s2cid=144552793 }}</ref> They were therefore likely to vote for Gore over Bush in the absence of Nader's candidacy.<ref name="Southwell-2004" />

A study by Harvard Professor B.C. Burden in 2005 showed Nader did "play a pivotal role in determining who would become president following the 2000 election", but that:

{{blockquote|Contrary to Democrats' complaints, Nader was not intentionally trying to throw the election. A spoiler strategy would have caused him to focus disproportionately on the most competitive states and markets with the hopes of being a key player in the outcome. There is no evidence that his appearances responded to closeness. He did, apparently, pursue voter support, however, in a quest to receive 5% of the popular vote.<ref name="Burden 673–699">{{Cite journal|last=Burden |first=B. C. |author-link=Barry Burden |title=Ralph Nader's Campaign Strategy |journal=American Politics Research |pages=673–699 |date=September 2005 |url=https://mywebspace.wisc.edu/bcburden/web/burden2005.pdf  |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20110713031620/https://mywebspace.wisc.edu/bcburden/web/burden2005.pdf |archive-date=2011-07-13 }}</ref>}}

However, [[Jonathan Chait]] of ''[[The American Prospect]]'' and ''[[The New Republic]]'' notes that Nader did indeed focus on swing states disproportionately during the waning days of the campaign, and by doing so jeopardized his own chances of achieving the 5% of the vote he was aiming for.

{{blockquote|Then there was the debate within the Nader campaign over where to travel in the waning days of the campaign. Some Nader advisers urged him to spend his time in uncontested states such as New York and California. These states – where liberals and leftists could entertain the thought of voting Nader without fear of aiding Bush – offered the richest harvest of potential votes. But, Martin writes, Nader – who emerges from this account as the house radical of his own campaign – insisted on spending the final days of the campaign on a whirlwind tour of battleground states such as Pennsylvania and Florida. In other words, he chose to go where the votes were scarcest, jeopardizing his own chances of winning 5 percent of the vote, which he needed to gain federal funds in 2004.<ref name="prospect1">{{cite web |url=http://www.prospect.org/cs/articles?article=books_in_review_110402 |title=Books in Review: &#124; The American Prospect |publisher=Prospect.org |access-date=2011-01-01 |archive-date=December 22, 2010 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20101222070928/http://prospect.org/cs/articles?article=books_in_review_110402  }}</ref>}}

When Nader, in a letter to environmentalists, attacked Gore for "his role as broker of environmental voters for corporate cash," and "the prototype for the bankable, Green corporate politician," and what he called a string of broken promises to the [[environmental movement]], [[Sierra Club]] president [[Carl Pope (environmentalist)|Carl Pope]] sent an open letter to Nader, dated October 27, 2000, defending Al Gore's environmental record and calling Nader's strategy "irresponsible."<ref>{{cite web |work=knowthecandidates.org |url=http://www.knowthecandidates.org/ktc/NaderSierraC.htm#sierraclubnader |title=The Nader Debate with the Sierra Club about Gore and the Environment }}</ref> He wrote:

{{blockquote|You have also broken your word to your followers who signed the petitions that got you on the ballot in many states. You pledged you would not campaign as a spoiler and would avoid the swing states. Your recent campaign rhetoric and campaign schedule make it clear that you have broken this pledge ... Please accept that I, and the overwhelming majority of the environmental movement in this country, genuinely believe that your strategy is flawed, dangerous and reckless.<ref>{{cite web |last=Pope |first=Carl |date=October 27, 2000 |url=http://www.commondreams.org/headlines/102700-03.htm |title=Ralph Nader Attack On Environmentalists Who Are Supporting Vice-President Gore |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20161112182906/http://www.commondreams.org/headlines/102700-03.htm |archive-date=2016-11-12 |work=CommonDreams.org }}</ref>}}