And, according to the news, Cuomo is planning to run as an independent for NYC mayor.
How bitter and petty do you have to be, or, perhaps, how self-aggrandizingly disillusioned, to think that running as an independent after you failed to win your party's primary is going to hand you a win? Statistically, all that's going to happen is that you're going to screw over your party's candidate and hand the other party a win
A third party will never be a viable option in the current US voting system. It’s called the Spoiler Effect, and it only benefits the major candidate most opposed to the 3rd party candidate. That’s how First Past The Post voting systems work. The two-party system is inescapable in this kind of election.
Voting for a third-party candidate that supports your views literally works to assure that someone contrary to your views will win. It’s bullshit but it’s what we’ve got.
Walker announced late Friday that he has suspended his bid for re-election -- citing the poor odds against his campaign winning the election and preventing the candidate he least wants to win from getting elected.
Why I disagree with the idea of the 2016 election being spoiled, and the numbers behind it
Full disclosure: I voted for Jill Stein. Twice. I voted for her in 2012 when I saw in Barack Obama another warhawk president, and I voted for her in 2016 for similar reasons, seeing that same potential in Hillary Clinton.
And for the last two years, I’ve had my share of arguments about it, because unlike 2012, Stein spoiled the election, and gave us Trump just like Nader spoiled 2000. It’s simply a fact that the votes Stein received in Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, and Michigan were greater than the margin between Trump and Clinton.
I never really bought it, though. I didn’t think it could be that simple. So I figured the best thing to do was break everything down numerically if I wanted to argue that Stein didn’t actually spoil the election. So here it is. No soapboxing, no prosthelytizing, no debate; just boring math.
I’ve taken the task of writing out eight different scenarios in which third party votes are redistributed, in order to see how they may have affected the outcomes. Because this is a long post, everything is under the cut, and I’ve also provided maps and summaries if you’re more interested in skimming rather than reading in detail.
First, let’s look at the margins in the swing states that went blue-to-red:
Michigan
Trump: 2,279,543
Clinton: 2,268,839
Stein: 51,463
Pennsylvania
Trump: 2,970,733
Clinton: 2,926,441
Stein: 49,941
Wisconsin
Trump: 1,405,284
Clinton: 1,382,536
Stein: 31,072
----------
So, there you have it! Clear as day, those Stein votes bridge the gap between Trump and Clinton. Had Stein not come around, those voters would have voted for Clinton.
Except... that’s not how people work.
According to Reason.com, 61% of Green Party voters reported they would have sat out the election if Stein was not on the ballot.
Thus, it’s unrealistic to assume all Stein voters would have voted for Clinton. At best, 39% of Stein voters would have otherwise voted for Clinton, and that’s generous, assuming they wouldn’t split their vote among socialist candidates like Gloria La Riva, Alyson Kennedy, Monica Moorehead, or Mimi Solystik, or other third party nominees. Regardless, what I will do is add 39% of Stein’s votes to Clinton, rounded up, even though the idea that all 39% would have voted Clinton cannot be true.
Caveat #1: I am aware self-reporting isn’t scientific, and the number could be higher, so if you find a better source for this kind of reporting, I’ll be glad to amend this post.
Caveat #2: I am personally aware Clinton isn’t the next ideological step from Stein. I’m just giving the benefit of the doubt in this case.
---------
First scenario: here are our new totals with 39% of Jill Stein’s votes going to Clinton:
Michigan
Trump: 2,279,543
Clinton: 2,288,910 (+20,071)
Pennsylvania
Trump: 2,970,733
Clinton: 2,945,918 (+19,477)
Wisconsin
Trump: 1,405,284
Clinton: 1,394,655 (+12,119)
----------
Clinton thus gains one state, Michigan, and its 16 electoral votes, but still can’t take Pennsylvania or Wisconsin.
Your new, Stein-free map looks like this:
For the record, it would have taken 88.7% of Pennsylvania voters and 73% of Wisconsin voters to have closed those gaps. If they were closer to 39%, I would have maybe conceded them, but we are a long way from 39% in both cases.
Summary: While Clinton gains Michigan, the one flipped state is not enough to win an election. Trump wins, 290-248.
------------
“Wait a second,” you may interject. “Isn’t someone missing?”
Why yes, most astute reader. I haven’t yet included Gary Johnson. And, to me, it makes no sense to drop Stein from but keep Johnson in the hypothetical race.
Gary Johnson also had turnout in Michigan (172,136), Pennsylvania (146,715), and Wisconsin (106,674), and should be counted.
The same Reason article had a similar self-reported number that 55% of Libertarian Party voters would have sat out without Johnson on the ballot. Thus, in the same way we have 39% of Stein’s votes to Clinton for being the next ideological match, we must give 45% of Johnson’s to Trumps for the same reasons.
Caveat #3: To its defense, the Libertarian Party as of late casts quite a larger net than the Green party, and a lot of Libertarian voters consider Trump too far from them ideologically. This is only a next ideological step in that Libertarians trend more conservative than progressive and would more likely vote Trump over Clinton, when in reality the numbers would probably spread even more thin among nominees. I will do another scenario in which Johnson’s votes evenly divide among Clinton and Trump, though I find that as equally unlikely as all 45% of Johnson voters going for Trump. Anyway, just play along with me.
----------
Second scenario: Clinton gained 39% of Stein voters and Trump gained 45% of Johnson voters:
Summary: Michigan stays in Trump’s column. Not only that, it would have taken only 5.5% of Johnson’s votes to flip Michigan back. Trump wins by the same margins, 306-232.
----------
We’re not done yet... what about the blue swing states?
In the same way that Stein’s total votes were larger than the margins between Clinton and Trump in Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin, there are also a number of blue states where Gary Johnson’s total votes were larger than the margins between Clinton and Trump.
Summary: Clinton still defends almost every blue state, because the margins are pretty overwhelming. Trump would need a full 95% of Colorado Johnson voters, 58.1% of Maine Johnson voters, 72.8% of Nevada Johnson voters, and 88% of New Mexico Johnson voters to flip those states. A long way from 45% in all cases.
However, New Hampshire flips. New Hampshire only needs 8.9% of Johnson voters to flip to give Trump that state.
Without third party nominees, the result is now a barely bigger victory for Donald Trump, rather than a clear victory for Hillary Clinton. Clinton makes no gains that cannot be overtaken by combined Trump and Johnson votes. Trump wins, 310-228
----------
The state of things so far:
Scenario 1: Clinton gets 39% of Jill Stein votes in Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin, and only flips Michigan. Trump wins, 290-248.
Scenario 2: Same as above, with 45% of Gary Johnson’s votes added to Trump’s totals. Michigan stays in Trump’s column. Trump wins, 306-232.
Scenario 3: Same as above, with blue swing states added. Trump takes New Hampshire. Trump wins, 310-228.
-----------
“Well, that’s not fair, because maybe some Libertarians are actually opposed to Trump, and a number of them would vote against him.”
Then, as promised, the next scenario will be based on what would happen if that 45% of Johnson voters were actually split evenly by Clinton and Trump. As I said before, this seems unlikely, but I’ll bite anyway. Obviously, this is meant give Clinton an advantage, but will it give her the advantage to win the election?
----------
Fourth scenario: Clinton gains 39% of Stein voters and 22.5% of Johnson voters, and Trump gains the other 22.5% of Johnson voters.
Summary: Clinton fully flips Michigan, but still loses Pennsylvania and Wisconsin. All blue swing states are defended. Even in a scenario where Clinton takes the all 39% of Stein voters who would vote without Stein on the ballot, and even with half of the 45% of Johnson voters who would vote without Johnson on the ballot, she cannot flip those states easily. Trump wins, 290-248.
----------
I call this next scenario the “liberal columnist” scenario: there were a number of editorials since the 2016 election which regard Johnson as a Clinton spoiler, as if Libertarians actually skew progressive and would have voted Clinton without Johnson on the ballot.
These people have clearly never talked politics with a Libertarian. It’s no mystery why most libertarian movers and shakers, including Johnson, are former Republicans.
But, for the sake of the liberal columnists, even though they probably will not read this, in this next scenario I will grant Clinton 39% of Stein’s votes, and 45% of Johnson’s votes, and give none to Trump. I’m only going to do this to the red states, as this exercise would make no change in the blue states but for increasing Clinton’s lead. Will Clinton win?
----------
Fifth scenario: In the red states, Clinton gains 39% of Stein voters and 45% of Johnson voters, while Trump’s totals stay the same.
Michigan
Trump: 2,279,543
Clinton: 2,366,672 (+97,533)
Pennsylvania
Trump: 2,970,733
Clinton: 3,011,940 (+85,499)
Wisconsin
Trump: 1,405,284
Clinton: 1,442,658 (+60,122)
Your new map:
Summary: Well, there it is! A path to victory for Hillary Clinton! Proof that third parties spoiled the election for her, as long as we assume that of the 39% of Stein voters who would have showed up without Stein on the ballot, and of the 45% of Johnson voters who wold have showed up without Johnson on the ballot, 100% of them would have voted for Clinton.
Of course, unless you are very stubborn, you’d understand why this result is far from likely. To assume all these remaining Stein and Johnson voters would only vote for Clinton is a pipe dream, especially with the libertarians, who still skew more conservative than progressive. Maybe they spread more thin than being overwhelmingly conservative, but they’re still far less likely to unify under Clinton than under Trump.
-------
Another recap, just in case you’re skipping around. I’ve so far made five scenarios:
Scenario 1: 39% of Stein votes go to Clinton. Clinton flips Michigan and gains 16 electoral votes. Trump wins, 290-248.
Scenario 2: The above, but 45% of Johnson votes are given to Trump. Trump retakes Michigan, and the 2016 election results remain the same. Trump wins, 306-232.
Scenario 3: The above, applied to blue swing states as well. Trump takes New Hampshire and its four electoral votes. Trump wins, 310-228.
Scenario 4: Johnson’s votes get split, with Clinton and Trump each gaining 22.5% of Johnson’s votes while Clinton gains 39% of Stein’s votes. Like the first scenario, Clinton gains Michigan and its 16 electoral votes, but Trump holds onto the other red states. Trump wins, 290-248.
Scenario 5: Clinton gains 39% of Stein’s votes and 45% of Johnson’s votes, while Trump makes no gains. Clinton flips Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin. Clinton wins, 278-260.
----------
Finally, I want to provide scenarios based on the nominees gaining 100% of the third party votes, rather than the number of voters who said they would vote without their respective nominees. I saved these for last because they are the least likely scenarios, but I also know a lot of people who think the math checks out at 100%.
----------
Sixth scenario: Clinton gains 100% of Stein voters, and Trump gains 100% of Johnson voters
Summary: Clinton makes no gains that cannot be overtaken by Trump and Johnson, while Trump gains Colorado (9 votes) Maine at-large (2 votes), Minnesota (10 votes), Nevada (6 votes), and New Hampshire (4 votes). Trump wins, 337-201.
Side note: I don’t know why Nebraska is displaying purple. It’s actually solid red.
----------
In this next scenario, I’m going to make like scenario 4 and split Johnson’s votes in half again, with the same logic that Libertarians cast a larger ideological net.
Seventh scenario: Clinton gains 100% of Stein’s and 50% of Johnson’s voters, Trump gets the other 50% of Johnson voters
Summary: Clinton holds all blue states and gains Michigan and Pennsylvania, with their 36 electoral votes. Trump still holds Wisconsin. Trump (barely) wins, 270-268.
----------
For my final scenario, I will suppose that all Stein and Johnson voters would want to go to Clinton. Like scenario 5, but with a larger margin. This is how I imagine most of those columnists and liberal-leaning pundits actually think the election would have played out without Stein and Johnson present. Again, I only need to do this to the red states, as the blue states can’t possibly flip if I’m adding nothing to Trump’s totals.
----------
Eighth scenario: All third-party votes go to Clinton, and Trump gains nothing.
Michigan
Trump: 2,279,543
Clinton: 2,492,438 (223,599)
Pennsylvania
Trump: 2,970,733
Clinton: 3,123,097 (+196,656)
Wisconsin
Trump: 1,405,284
Clinton: 1,520,282 (+137,746)
Your new map:
Summary: Obviously, this would have been a win for Clinton. With 100% of Stein’s and Johnson’s votes, the margins are pretty significant, and Clinton would gain 46 electoral votes. Clinton wins, 278-260.
-----
A final summary of the scenarios, in case you skipped to the end:
Scenario 1: 39% of Stein votes go to Clinton. Clinton flips Michigan and gains 16 electoral votes. Trump wins, 290-248.
Scenario 2: The above, but 45% of Johnson votes are given to Trump. Trump retakes Michigan, and the 2016 election results remain the same. Trump wins, 306-232.
Scenario 3: The above, applied to blue swing states as well. Trump takes New Hampshire and its four electoral votes. Trump wins, 310-228
Scenario 4: Johnson’s votes get split, with Clinton and Trump each gaining 22.5% of Johnson’s votes while Clinton gains 39% of Stein’s votes. Like the first scenario, Clinton gains Michigan and its 16 electoral votes, but Trump holds onto the other red states. Trump wins. 290-248.
Scenario 5: Clinton gains 39% of Stein’s votes and 45% of Johnson’s votes, while Trump makes no gains. Clinton flips Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin. Clinton wins, 278-260.
Scenario 6: Clinton gains 100% of Stein’s votes, and Trump gains 100% of Johnson’s votes. Trump gains Colorado, Maine at-large, Nevada, New Hampshire, and 31 new electoral votes. Trump wins, 337-201.
Scenario 7: Clinton gains 100% of Stein’s votes and 50% of Johnson’s votes, with Trump getting the other half of Johnson’s. Clinton wins in Michigan and Pennsylvania and their 26 electoral votes. Trump holds Wisconsin. Trump wins, 270-268.
Scenario 8: Clinton gains all third-party votes. Clinton gains Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Michigan and their 46 electoral votes. Clinton wins, 278-260.
-------
Conclusion:
Of these eight scenarios, only two have Clinton winning, and they’re the ones that offers her hugely unrealistic handicaps: that no third-party voters could go to Trump, and or that no third-party voter would vote for any other third-party nominee.
With these results, I can confidently say that I don’t believe there was a “spoiler” this election. The numbers just don’t add up unless you really stretch them or make some huge assumptions.
By writing this I’m hoping to invite better discourses about third parties and third-party voting. After two years of liberals blaming Jill Stein and (somehow) Gary Johnson for Clinton’s loss, this is me saying it just could not have been that simple, and showing my work. Am I saying we can’t debate at all? No. I’m simply saying it’s not enough to say “they gave us Trump.”
If you disagree with this post, I invite you to show your work as well. Maybe there’s a scenario I didn’t consider, or maybe my math is worse than I think it is, or maybe you can provide better sources to me about how third party voters would actually have voted. I welcome that debate.
Otherwise, you can stop blaming third parties anytime now.
