Times Publishes Myths as Fact

New York Times reporter Micahel Lou appears terribly unfamiliar with the voting process in the United States and voters’ behavior because he presents two myths in single paragraph for an otherwise dreary story about potential Libertarian Party presidential candidate Bob Barr.

Saying his name 3 times will make him president

First myth appears in the first sentence of the second to last paragraph.

<blockquote>In the last presidential election, the Libertarian Party candidate received fewer than 400,000 votes.</blockquote>

The less than 400,000 votes does not matter a whit in American presidential politics for two reasons. One, consider that the nominees from the Democratic and Republican parties received a combined 121 million votes in the 2004 presidential vote. The votes for the Libertarian Party candidate represent a proverbial drop of water in the ocean. Thus, the vote total represents a vapid argument.

Two, unlike in France, the United States fails to contest a national election for the presidency. Because the United States relies on the Electoral College, the United States conducts 50 separate elections to choose a president. Despite the fact that these 50 separate elections are held on the same day, the United State fails to conduct a national election.

If the Libertarian Party’s less 400,000 votes occurred in California or Connecticut, which are two states the Republican Party nominee lost by less than 400,000 votes, then Lou’s argument may hold credence.

Except it does not because Lou relies on a second myth that he presents immediately following the first myth.

<blockquote>Still, the ultimate fear for Republicans is that Mr. Barr or some other third-party candidate might do to them what some say Ralph Nader as the Green Party candidate, did to former Vice President Al Gore in Florida in 2000, stealing away just enough votes to make the difference in a close contest.</blockquote>

Nader’s presence on the Florida ballot cost Gore the general election because voters in Florida cast their lot with Nader instead of Gore. Gore’s supporters as well as Bush’s detractors sit around a proverbial camp fire, wool blankets draped over their shivering folders, attempting to find warmth from the embers of this myth against the cold reality that Gore ran the worst presidential campaign this side of John F. Kerry.

The myth relies on Hoteling’s discussion of distance. Researchers in economics but not researchers in retailing and marketing enjoy Hoteling, who espouses that when a consumer’s choice becomes unavailable, the consumer will travel the shortest distance in order for the choice to become available. Economics researchers like Hoteling because they measure choice without actually directly asking consumers (i.e., conduct a survey) about their choice. Economics researchers avoid survey research methodology like intelligent design researchers avoid data collection.

Retail and marketing researchers, who fully embrace survey research methodology like biology researchers embrace data collection, know that consumer choice is not bounded by rationality and certainly distance. Consumers often fail to consider utility, let alone attempt to maximize it.

Hoteling’s idea provide cover for the Gore supporters and the Bush detractors. Besides Gore, who was more liberal than Nader, the myth asks, ignoring the Socialist Party candidate. The myth answers, if Nader were not on the ballot, then those consumers would have travel the shortest distance to the next liberal choice as embodied by Gore.

To accept this myth, Lou must ignore two facts. One, Gore ran the worst presidential campaign save for Kerry’s effort. Two, consumers who vote for third party candidates like Ralph Nader of the Green Party generally refuse to vote for candidates from the Democratic and Republican parties. That is, if Nader or the Green Party had not appear on any state’s ballot, then those voters more than likely would have chosen the candidate from the Natural Law Party, the Libertarian Party, the Communist Party, etc., or stayed at home (i.e., not voted at all).

Finally, the staff at Blipverts offers three pieces of advice for Michael Lou. One, challenge your myths. If representatives from the Democratic and Republican parties provide you with information, then challenge it. You will be the better writer for it, your employer will be the better paper for it, and your readers will be the better citizens for it.

Two, write stories that contain more than two cited sources and two anonymous sources. In this era of Judith Miller and Jayson Blair, your copy appears suspect. Because both worked for your employer, your copy must be purer than Ceaser’s wife. That is, the Portland Oregonian may get away with a poorly sourced story like this story, but the New York Times cannot.

Three, learn about the American electoral process.