I'm going to try to keep this as on topic as possible, but please allow me a little digression, because - as is frequently the case - the discussion is more interesting than the article.
First, I'd warn you away from this sort of "but for" thinking: "But for Nader, Gore would have won" assumes a large number of unproven assertions. For all we know, but for Nader's candidacy, some kook with a rifle would have killed Al Gore. If the future is an epistemological quandary, alternate futures are doubly so.
Second, if we do play the, "but for" game, Nader may have radically increased Democratic turnout. In states with close Senate races, (Washington?), while it's possible that the Al Gore presidential campaign lost votes, the extra liberal turnout likely pushed the Democratic Senate races over the top. This contributed to the 50-50 split of the senate and allowed the senator from Vermont to leave the Republican Party and give control of the Senate to the Democrats.
Third, Monica Morehead, another presidential candidate (one of the socialist parties) received over 1k votes in Florida. If the argument that "Nader voters should just have taken Gore, he's closer to what they wanted than Bush" is true, it also holds for the parties further left. I don't see a overwhelming tide of blame coming down on her head.
Fourth, even if all the Nader voters had voted for Gore, it's not entirely clear that it would have mattered. The recount shenanigans, the dueling Supreme courts, the enormous conflict's of interest on both sides, that election wasn't settled by voters.
Finally, if Gore were president it is almost a certainty that we would be invading Iraq. Joseph Lieberman (currently representing my state) is a strongly religious Jew and has been calling for war with Iraq ever since we left the first time around. This is the same Joseph Lieberman, you may remember, that would have been Al Gore's VP.
---
Obligatory on topic comment: Of course government scientists are going to try to kiss up to their bosses. They want more money for themselves or their projects. The real question is, "Is the peer review system sufficient to counteract this trend." If our government has (effective?) checks and balances, should science as well? How do we achieve this?
Slashdot Mirror
I'm going to try to keep this as on topic as possible, but please allow me a little digression, because - as is frequently the case - the discussion is more interesting than the article.
First, I'd warn you away from this sort of "but for" thinking: "But for Nader, Gore would have won" assumes a large number of unproven assertions. For all we know, but for Nader's candidacy, some kook with a rifle would have killed Al Gore. If the future is an epistemological quandary, alternate futures are doubly so.
Second, if we do play the, "but for" game, Nader may have radically increased Democratic turnout. In states with close Senate races, (Washington?), while it's possible that the Al Gore presidential campaign lost votes, the extra liberal turnout likely pushed the Democratic Senate races over the top. This contributed to the 50-50 split of the senate and allowed the senator from Vermont to leave the Republican Party and give control of the Senate to the Democrats.
Third, Monica Morehead, another presidential candidate (one of the socialist parties) received over 1k votes in Florida. If the argument that "Nader voters should just have taken Gore, he's closer to what they wanted than Bush" is true, it also holds for the parties further left. I don't see a overwhelming tide of blame coming down on her head.
Fourth, even if all the Nader voters had voted for Gore, it's not entirely clear that it would have mattered. The recount shenanigans, the dueling Supreme courts, the enormous conflict's of interest on both sides, that election wasn't settled by voters.
Finally, if Gore were president it is almost a certainty that we would be invading Iraq. Joseph Lieberman (currently representing my state) is a strongly religious Jew and has been calling for war with Iraq ever since we left the first time around. This is the same Joseph Lieberman, you may remember, that would have been Al Gore's VP.
---
Obligatory on topic comment: Of course government scientists are going to try to kiss up to their bosses. They want more money for themselves or their projects. The real question is, "Is the peer review system sufficient to counteract this trend." If our government has (effective?) checks and balances, should science as well? How do we achieve this?
Actually, using IE, I found that it said "slashdot.org". Kinda' cool either way.