Back in 2004, a second round of voting certainly would have had at least one major difference. It is a virtual certainty that most or all of the people who voted for Ralph Nader would have switched their votes to Al Gore.
Going back a bit further, in 1992, Bill Clinton won the Presidency with a large majority of the Electoral College but only a plurality of the popular vote.
Quite a few people insisted that Clinton only won because Ross Perot had taken so much support away from George H.W. Bush. Assuming that was true, then Bush would have won a runoff against Clinton because Perot's supporters would have switched their votes to him.
(Personally, I was always skeptical that Bush really had that much support, but that's an old argument now.)
Going back a bit further, in 1992, Bill Clinton won the Presidency with a large majority of the Electoral College but only a plurality of the popular vote.
Quite a few people insisted that Clinton only won because Ross Perot had taken so much support away from George H.W. Bush. Assuming that was true, then Bush would have won a runoff against Clinton because Perot's supporters would have switched their votes to him.
(Personally, I was always skeptical that Bush really had that much support, but that's an old argument now.)
Comment