[Dan Middleton]

So Nader may draw a few votes away from Lurch. Boo-hoo. We Republicans got screwed by Perot twice. (Didn't we? I can't remember if the little weirdo made it all the way to the actual election in '96.) It's only fair the Dems get screwed twice in return.

[Verginius Rufus]

Yes, Perot stayed in the race in 1996 until election day, and got 8 million votes (vs. almost 20 million in 1992). I don't think he affected the outcome in 1996, other than maybe keeping Clinton under 50% of the popular vote.

[fhayek]

I still laugh when I think that Al 'Earth in the Lurch' Gore lost votes to someone from the Green party.

[weegee]

Third Party candidates are only "appreciated" when they siphon votes from the Republican Party.

Yes Perot botched the results of 2 elections. Bill Clinton never received 50% of the vote (so much for his "mandate"). George W. Bush received more total votes than Bill Clinton did in either of his elections.

The "popular vote" from 2000 is a hollow victory for the Dims. Albert Gore Junior's lead was 0.52% (half of 1 percent). Well within the margin of error. Since there was no national recount (and a number of states signed off on the vote tallies before all of the absentee ballots came in) as well as admitted fraud (college students voting for Gore at home and school, college kids going to the polls several times to vote for Gore) and the usual dead voters, that 0.52% marginal win means nothing. We will never know who won the popular vote with any certainty. We can only accept the official numbers which were signed off on across the country.

I would say that there is no reason to ever sign off on the numbers early just because a state is not in contention necessitating a recount. BS statistics like the 2000 Popular Vote give evidence why every vote needs to be counted in every state.