The joker in the pack

The reason for the importance of states is a constitutional anomaly. ThePresident is elected not by direct popular vote, but by an electoral college in which states have votes proportional to their populations. Hence the huge states such as California and New York matter enormously; small states such as Nevada or Utah matter much less. But there are far more of the small-population states, and they add up.

Republicans typically win the Western interior mountain states with ease. This is the storied land of vast expanses of wide-open (empty) spaces, powerful cattle and timber barons, radical right-wing fringe cults and deep resentment over control of public lands from Washington D.C.

Hostile to regulation and any but local control, these states have a strong preference for laissez-faire Republicans. George Bush is especially attractive: his view of regulation of environmental damage, for example, is essentially voluntaristic. As a result, Texas now leads the nation in some categories of industrial pollution; Houston has replaced Los Angeles in having the worst air quality in the country.

Among the battleground states, particularistic dynamics are at play: localinterests in national issues. Public retirement income programs (social security) is, for example, of special importance in states with large elderly communities — such as sunny Florida. Only in Florida is foreign policy towards Cuba an issue.

Of surprising importance in this mix is the candidacy of Ralph Nader, of the Green Party. Nationally, the Green Party is insignificant, supported by less than five per cent of the voters.

But the local matters. In environmentally conscious West-Coast states such as Oregon, Washington and California, Nader’s claim that Gore has hypocritically abandoned his environmental agenda strikes deep roots in alarge enough population to jeopardize the Democratic candidate’s presumed victory in those states.

Nader may win only eight per cent in these states, but that is the margin of victory in the last presidential election. As a result, the Vice President is having to spend time and money in states once considered "safe."

In Michigan, a largish industrial battleground state, Gore’s rhetorical commitment to action on global warming alienates the powerful automobile industry in Detroit, while the Green Party candidate’s native-son appeal to Arab-Americans makes another small dent in the Democrat’s prospects. Moreover, Gore’s commitment to free trade globally alienates some of the traditional Democratic base in labor unions; jobs are held to be at stake.

The Democrats and affiliated support groups, such as those supporting abortion rights, are now frantically attempting to counter the Nader/Green threat by arguing that "a vote for Nader is a vote for Bush," since Nader cannot win but Bush may.

A Bush presidency, they argue, would mean a Supreme Court hostile to abortion rights (which in America is loaded with the doubly positive "freedom to choose:" there is little Americans prize above freedom and choice).

Florida is at the other end of the continuum: Republicans typically count it as safe, but George Bush is having to pour time and money into the state to fend off a Gore surge, despite the efforts of Bush’s brother as Governor of the state.

Much was made of the three debates, but in the end few minds seem to havebeen changed. Ironically, the debates may have hurt Gore most, since Naderwas excluded, infuriating his supporters. There was no third position atplay.

Nader’s voice has been largely silenced: no big corporate fundersline up to subsidise his attack on corporate control of both electioneering and policy.

Ironically, the necessity of Gore countering Nader’s pockets of strength has raised the profile of the Greens. News media are beginning to pay attention; Nader signs are sprouting in my neighbourhood. The New York Times (October 26, 2000) calls Ralph Nader’s campaign "electoral mischief" and a "self-indulgent crusade;" his "willful prankishness" is a "disservice to the electorate."

When an institution as powerful as The New York Times sits up and takes notice sufficient to heap such vitriolic scorn on a candidate one thing is sure: Nader raises uncomfortable issues for the establishment complacency that rules America.

Ronald J. Herring is John S. Knight Professor of International Relations and Professor of Government at Cornell University and Director of The Mario Einaudi Centre for International Studies. He wrote this article exclusively for The Indian Express

Much was made of the three debates, but in the end few minds seem to havebeen changed. Ironically, the debates may have hurt Democratic Al Gore most, since Ralph Nader was excluded.