The Reverend Al Sharpton is correct when he says that there will be a shock when we witness his vote-getting abilities in the upcoming presidential primaries. I predict that he will get 90% of the black vote and larger than expected numbers of votes from other groups as well. I find it laughable that his popularity with any group of black voters – southerners are usually mentioned – is questioned. Even more amusing is the idea that Carol Moseley-Braun could possibly take votes from him. A person who answers every question by saying, “I come from a law enforcement background” is no match for Al Sharpton.

In its October 2, 2003 issue Black Commentator correctly described the Reverend Al Sharpton and Representative Dennis Kucinich as “two civilized men among the barbarians.” Neither of the two civilized men has a chance of getting the Democratic nomination, much less the presidency. As much as the idea brings forth righteous fantasies, Al Sharpton may be wasting precious time by running for the Democratic nomination. He can be far more effective as a third party candidate, but with an important twist.

Unfortunately for Sharpton, the political system in our country is rigged in favor of a two party system in presidential elections. The Electoral College insures that third party candidates can only play the role of spoiler. I wrestled with this very issue three years ago. I did not want George W. Bush to win, but I was not enthusiastic about Al Gore. Thanks to Clinton’s “triangulation” and blurring the lines between Democrats and Republicans, the Democratic Party no longer stood for its core values of promoting fairness. Al Gore is a very smart, capable man, but being saddled with the after effects of eight years of triangulating and lacking Clinton’s charisma (who doesn’t?) he couldn’t get enough votes in enough states to avoid the electoral college debacle that led to the Bush administration. He also didn’t know that Florida Governor Jeb Bush and Secretary of State Katherine Harris had scrubbed thousands of likely Democratic voters from the rolls in Florida.

I wanted to register my dissatisfaction with Gore but I didn’t buy the argument that there is no difference between the Republicans and Democrats. Some who advocated that argument have now repented in the face of the Bush administration’s grotesque hyper-capitalism and imperialism. Republicans in the House of Representatives have announced a plan to lower corporate taxes. No wonder former Naderites have gotten religion. I believed that there was not enough difference between the two parties, that the Democrats had become too close to corporate interests and were not sufficiently combative in fighting for the most vulnerable Americans. But I had no illusions about which I preferred making lifetime appointments to the federal judiciary.

My agony was relieved when I realized that the Electoral College gave me an out. Because of the Electoral College, our votes count only in the states where we reside. My vote counted only in New York and New York was looking good for Gore.

Every state has a number of electors equal to the number of its United States Senators, two, and Congressional members allotted on the basis of population. The numbers may change with census figures and subsequent redistricting. Whoever wins the most votes in a state wins all of its electoral votes. We should ignore poll results which even if accurate only reflect the popular vote. Democrats should have a new mantra for 2004. “It’s the electoral votes, stupid.”

There are a total of 538 electoral votes among the 50 states. The candidate who wins enough states to reach 270 electoral votes wins the presidency. George W. Bush is President today because he won Florida, or so they say, by a mere 500 votes. Because the Electoral College is a winner take all system it doesn’t matter if the victory is wide or razor thin. If Bush had won by just 2 votes he would still have won Florida and had enough electoral votes to be pushed over the top.

Al Gore had an enormous lead in New York State in every poll. Bush and the Republicans had conceded the state to him. Gore’s huge lead in New York gave me an opportunity to vote for Nader without helping Bush. Gore ended up winning by a 25% margin, one of the largest of all the states he won. The same logic applied in states where Gore had no chance of winning. A Democrat in Texas couldn’t help Gore. A vote for Nader did no harm in that state. The electoral college makes it possible for Sharpton to run as a third party candidate without harming the Democratic nominee in those states that Democrats either never win or win by large margins.

An Al Sharpton third party strategy in selected states would have another important effect. He could raise issues ignored by the Democrats and Republicans, such as the problem of rural poverty. He could talk about the loss of manufacturing jobs in the south and the exploitation of natural resources in the west.

Can you imagine Sharpton campaigning in Billings, Montana? I can. Montana residents were the victims of one of the worst corporate frauds in American history. Montana Power went out of the business it knew best, providing reliable electricity at low rates. The CEO and other executives were sweet talked by Wall Street crooks, that is to say investment bankers, into the telecommunications business and fell into the fiber optic boondoggle. The result has been layoffs, soaring electric rates, and lost savings and investments a la Enron. Al should definitely campaign in the Republican stronghold of Montana.

A selective third party strategy would give the Sharpton the opportunity to go back to his activist roots and shed light on ignored problems in this country. Back in the 1980s Sharpton led marchers to paint large X’s on the doors of known drug locations in New York City. He could now march on crystal meth labs in Nebraska. He would do more than expose drug locations; he would expose the fact that white communities also have problems that are not addressed by the powerful.

One of the many problems with the Electoral College is that it not only allows but encourages the Republicans and Democrats to ignore huge swaths of the country and thus important issues as well. Because New York was conceded to Gore we never saw a presidential campaign. Neither did Texas, California or most of the southern and western states. Sharpton could raise issues that matter in every part of the country. South Dakotans would hear discussions of whether price supports for agriculture are truly helpful to their state. North Carolinians could see a candidate decry the existence of hog “lagoons,” lakes of manure created by enormous hog farms that are destroying the environment and damaging the health of thousands. Because those two states are solidly in the Republican camp they exemplify the injustice of the Electoral College system that forces candidates to abandon them in favor of swing states that make or break a presidential campaign.

If Sharpton stays in the Democratic race it will be a repeat of Jesse Jackson’s experience in the 1980s. We will have a candidate who excites us but who in the end will come up short. He will do better than expected, he may win a few primaries, but he will not be considered as a vice presidential candidate or be given an important role in the party.

Al Sharpton will certainly shock the conventional wisdom of the punditry. But it ought to be in a way that will shake the system to its core by energizing millions of Americans whose concerns go unheeded. He may be a spoiler, but he may spoil the ambitions of one George W. Bush. So run Al, run. Run to Fargo, Pascagoula and Salt Lake City too.

Margaret Kinberley’s Freedom Rider column appears weekly in ..  Ms. Kimberley is a freelance writer living in New York City.  She can be reached via e-Mail at [email protected]. You can read more of Ms. Kimberley's writings at http://freedomrider.blogspot.com/