And herein lies the problem: the 2000 election was full of variables all of which had some consequence, especially given the competitiveness of the race. In Florida, Gore officially lost by 537 votes to George Bush’s 2,912,790; statewide, Nader received a total of 97,488 votes. These two things are true, but not causal. It takes a deliberately biased eye to select Nader voters as the lynchpin on which to blame Gore’s loss. We have done so for decades to paper over the flaws of the Gore/Lieberman candidacy, of our abysmal patchwork electoral system and massive voter roll purges, the absurdity of butterfly ballots and hanging chads, and the unprecedented Supreme Court ruling to preempt Florida’s state procedures. Instead of addressing any of those massive issues, every few years we dust off this ignorant old chestnut that Nader spoiled it for Gore and use that as a political cudgel against future voters.

In fact, a number of other parties would perhaps make better scapegoats. Among them the Worker’s World Party of Florida, whose candidate, Monica Moorehead received 1,804 votes — we could easily blame her. Or John Hagelin of the Natural Law Party who received 2,281 votes, perhaps we should blame his supporters? Surely their belief in transcendental meditation as a guideline for public policy aligned more with Gore’s environmental aspirations than Bush’s. Or if only Pat Buchanan and the Reform Party had bowed out, his 17,484 could have solidified Bush’s win, and rid us of this uncertainty. Or better yet, how about the more than 304,000 registered Democrats in Florida — who voted for Bush over Gore? Surely more loyalty was expected of them? Surely they are more to blame than Nader voters who drew an equal share from Republicans and Democrats and who sincerely and adamantly did what we ask of good citizens? How about we shame the roughly 3-million Floridians who didn’t bother to cast a ballot at all — or the nearly ten-million who didn’t participate in the primaries? There could be an actual lesson there about citizenship and the duties associated with living in a participatory democracy, rather than a condescending lecture on choosing the “correct” candidate.

It is true that, ultimately, Gore lost Florida. So did Clinton in 1992. The difference was Gore also lost New Hampshire, Colorado, Nevada, Ohio, Missouri, Louisiana and Tennessee — all states that Clinton carried in 1992 and 1996. Regardless of how good he may appear now in retrospect and in the aftermath of a Bush presidency — Gore was a deeply unpopular and uninspiring candidate — and the electorate responded to that.