WI: Perot doesn't create the Reform Party

1996 might be a bit closer assuming most Perot voters break for Dole (which could be the case but I’m not sure).

2000 might be the bigger ripple because there’s some evidence a lot of people voted for Buchanan in Florida accidentally instead of Gore. No Reform Party could mean no Buchanan 2000 campaign or at least the balloting issues might be avoided.
 
. . . assuming most Perot voters break for Dole (which could be the case but I’m not sure). . .
I used to think that was the case, too, but a study of Florida 2000 really got me thinking otherwise:

upload_2018-9-18_12-45-30-jpg.409020



Notice that both Nader and Buchanan voters are in the middle of the left-right spectrum only slightly edging to one side or another, and way in the middle compared to Gore and Bush voters.

http://www.sscnet.ucla.edu/polisci/faculty/lewis/pdf/greenreform9.pdf

graph on page 17 (page 19 of PDF)

* the two political scientists were Michael Herron and Jeffrey Lewis.
 
1996 might be a bit closer assuming most Perot voters break for Dole (which could be the case but I’m not sure).

2000 might be the bigger ripple because there’s some evidence a lot of people voted for Buchanan in Florida accidentally instead of Gore. No Reform Party could mean no Buchanan 2000 campaign or at least the balloting issues might be avoided.
That probably wouldn't change since the problem was with how the ballot was laid out. Without the Reform Party everybody else on that side of the ballot would of just moved up. The difference would be that people would of accidentally voted for David McReynolds and the Socialists instead of Buchanan and the Reform Party.
 
If you make the absolutely absurd assumption that every OTL 1996 Perot vote would go to Dole (none to Clinton, none to Nader, none to Browne, none stay home) then Clinton would still win the popular vote in 1996, but would narrowly lose the Electoral College. (In addition to the 159 electoral votes he got in OTL, Dole would carry KY, NV, AZ, TN, FL, MO, OH, OR, PA and WI for an additional 133 electoral votes, giving him 292. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1996_United_States_presidential_election)

Actually, polls showed more Perot voters listing Clinton as their second choice than Dole. http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/1996/polls/cnn.usa.gallup/tracking/ Even if those polls were wrong and Perot hurt Clinton more than Dole, I doubt that he changed the result except in a few very close Clinton states (KY, NV, AZ) which would not prevent Clinton from easily winning the Electoral College.
 
Top