I received the following “Response on Behalf of Ralph Nader” from Oliver Hall. (While I am happy to post the questions, I don’t have time to answer these interrogatories (though I do want to write something at some point about “spoiler” candidates). Readers are welcome to submit their own answers if they want to take the time):

In your March 25, 2016 blog post, “Ralph Nader: Why Bernie Sanders Was Right to Run as a Democrat,” you wrote that it’s “amazing that Nader can write this without mentioning his spoiler role in Florida in Bush v. Gore.”

You then quote “a reader” who quotes a New York Times editorial asserting that Nader is a “‘political narcissist’ whose ego has ‘run amuck.’”

We’re used to hearing this kind of rhetoric from partisan Democrats who want to blame a scapegoat for the outcome of the 2000 presidential election. But when it comes from someone like you, a political scientist, election law expert, and faculty member of UC Irvine’s Center for the Study of Democracy – that’s what’s really amazing.

As you must recognize, the “spoiler” charge is fundamentally anti-democratic, in that it relegates all candidates other than Republicans and Democrats to the status of second-class citizens, who presumptively lack legitimacy to participate in elections on an equal basis with the major party nominees. If you are concerned about minor party or independent candidates splitting the vote, there are solutions our major-party controlled legislatures could enact tomorrow, like instant run-off voting, which protect the rights of all citizens equally. But opposing a candidate’s mere participation in an election, on the ground that it might “spoil” the outcome, is inconsistent with the freedom of association and political equality guaranteed by the First and Fourteenth Amendments.

Further, by repeating disparaging comments about Mr. Nader’s character, you imply that he had no reason to run for public office, except to satisfy the narcissism others impute to him. That is simply astounding. You know as well as anyone that the major parties have rigged our electoral system to suppress competition by means of overly restrictive and discriminatory ballot access laws, gerrymandering, winner-take-all elections including, at the presidential level, the archaic and unnecessary Electoral College, and campaign finance laws strongly tilted to favor Republicans and Democrats. You also know that Mr. Nader has developed a comprehensive critique of that system, and of a political process controlled by two major parties which, in turn, have been largely captured by corporate interests – with predictable consequences for substantive outcomes. You may disagree with that critique, but to ignore it entirely, while suggesting that Mr. Nader had no legitimate reason to run for public office, is disingenuous.

Your post thus invites a number of questions. In the interest of fairness, and to clarify the basis of your position, we request that you post this response submitted on Mr. Nader’s behalf, as well as your answers to the questions below.

1. By what principle do you designate a particular candidate, in contrast with all other candidates in an election, as a “spoiler”, and how do you reconcile that principle with the freedom of association and political equality guaranteed by the First and Fourteenth Amendments?
2. Since you believe Mr. Nader was a “spoiler” in the 2000 presidential election, does that mean you believe the other seven candidates on Florida’s presidential ballot, each of whom received more votes than the margin of difference between Bush and Gore, were also “spoilers”?
3. If your answer to question 2 is No, then why do you designate Mr. Nader as a “spoiler”, but not those other seven candidates?
4. If your answer to question 2 is Yes, then why do you accord the Republican and Democrat privileged status as the only non-spoiler candidates in the election, when the Constitution itself does not accord them that status?
5. Can you identify any other individual or group whose lawful participation in an election you would oppose, on the ground that it could “spoil” the outcome, and state your reasons or justification for that position?
6. How do you know that if Mr. Nader hadn’t run in 2000, a majority of his 97,488 Florida voters would have voted for Gore instead of staying home?
7. How do you know that if Mr. Nader hadn’t run in 2000, a majority of his 97,488 Florida voters would have voted for Gore instead of voting for Bush or one of the other seven presidential candidates on the ballot?
8. How do you know that Mr. Nader’s candidacy in 2000 didn’t increase Gore’s vote total among progressives, by causing a statistically significant “mobilization effect,” the result of which was that “some large number but small proportion of the Gore vote would not have voted for Gore had Ralph Nader not been in the race and reminded them what a left agenda could feel like,” as professor Solon Simmons concluded in a 2004 study (attached)?
9. How do you know that Mr. Nader’s candidacy in 2000 didn’t increase Gore’s vote total among independents, by enabling Gore to run more effectively as a centrist, as professor Robert Fellmeth argues in a 2000 op-ed for the San Diego Union-Tribune (attached)?
10. If you are unable to provide evidence to support your position in response to questions 6 through 9, how can you claim to know the true impact of Mr. Nader’s candidacy on the outcome of the 2000 presidential election?

We look forward to your response

Sincerely,

Oliver Hall

Counsel to Ralph Nader